These Are the 10 Most Atheistic (and Religious) Countries
- Posted on August 9, 2012 at 7:12am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Atheism is on the rise. While the gains are relatively small, studies continue to corroborate the fact that those embracing non-belief constitute a growing minority.
Recently, TheBlaze told you about the growth of “nones” in America — those individuals who do not embrace a higher power (one in five Americans now fit this category). Now, a new study by RedC Opinion Poll, part of WIN-Gallup International, has found that atheism is on the rise globally as well.
On the whole, the majority of the world still embraces faith, with 59 percent of global citizens reporting that they consider themselves religious people. In contrast, 23 percent of those surveyed count themselves as nonreligious, with an additional 13 percent claiming that they are “convinced atheists.”
In collecting the data for the “Global Index of Religiosity & Atheism,” WIN-Gallup International interviewed more than 51,900 men and women from 57 countries on five continents. The research has brought together some fascinating finds. To begin, there is a disparity among the rich and the poor when it comes to religiosity.
“It is interesting that religiosity declines as worldly prosperity of individuals rises,” the report reads. “If citizens of each of the 57 countries are grouped into five groups, from the relatively poor to relatively rich in their own countries, the richer you get, the less religious you define yourself.”
Photo Credit: Global Index of Religiosity & Atheism
Across the globe, there is also a notable decline among those who report being religious. When compared to the same research that WIN-Gallup International conducted in 2005, among the global average of the 39 countries examined in both waves of the study, the Religiosity Index dropped nine percent during the seven-year period. During the same time-frame, atheism has experienced a three-percentage point rise.
Declines in belief may be concerning to some, especially when examining the countries where these proportions were the largest. Vietnam (-23 percent), Ireland (-22 percent), Switzerland and France (both -21 percent) topped the chart for the biggest dips in faith. Even the U.S. made its way onto the most noticeable list, with a -13 percent change in religiosity.
Photo Credit: Global Index of Religiosity & Atheism
Every individual included in the study was asked, “Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?”
Among the most fascinating results is a list which shows the nations that have the largest proportion of atheists. Considering that only 13 percent of the world (at least based on the countries studied) holds no belief in a higher power, the level of atheism in the countries at the top of the list may be surprising.
The 10 (technically 11, seeing as four nations tied one another) countries, in order of most non-believing are: China, Japan, Czech Republic, France, South Korea, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Iceland, Australia and Ireland. Here’s a table that shows the details:
Photo Credit: Global Index of Religiosity & Atheism
On the flip side, the world’s most religious countries are also worth examining. Ghana, Nigeria, Armenia, Fiji and Macedonia lead the list. Brazil, which comes in 10th, still has a population of belief that comes in at 85 percent. Here’s the chart:
Photo Credit: Global Index of Religiosity & Atheism
The “Global Index of Religiosity & Atheism” took national probability samples of about 1,000 individuals from each nation (for a total of 51,927). Respondents were spoken to face-to-face or via telephone between November 2011 and January 2012. The margin of error is said to be +/- 3.5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
You can read the rest of the study for yourself here.
–
RELATED:
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (242)
Johann
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:19pmextra ecclesiam nemo salvus erit.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:45pmWith increased wealth comes decreased religiosity?
OR, does decreased religiosity increase wealth?
I favor the second mindset. When you stop thinking like a caveman you can make smarter decisions in life and be more successful.
Report Post »Curious Visitor
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:09pm@Bush
I don‘t think it’s a direct causation in either direction but a strong correlation does make sense to me. Religious people generally attribute some part of success and failure to something outside of themselves. This creates a world where some people are “blessed” and some people are being tested by God.
A society where folks understand that consequences stem from actions and that we are radically in control of our own futures and the future of our species lends itself to one where people attempt to solve problems rather than pray for help.
We‘re all we have and we’re in charge of our lives.
Report Post »JohnGalt
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:26pmSince the U.S was founded as Christian colonies, and a strong Christian work ethic allowed the U.S to become the biggest economy in the world. I would say the more the Christian the wealthier .
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:54pm[and a strong Christian work ethic allowed the U.S to become the biggest economy in the world]
Report Post »Christian work ethic? You mean the institutionalization of Slavery?
FCS
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 2:39amIt is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to inherit the kingdom of Heaven — Jesus
Hmmm, maybe that’s why rich, wealthy, socialistic nations and their citizens have abandoned faith and instead rely on their own false wisdom and arrogance. By the way, cavemen didn’t have faith, they are more akin to you.
Report Post »Solexander
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 2:39amOderint dum metuant.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:55am@ SOLE…Caligula would be proud…..
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 1:28pmSolexander, do you still believe the boogie man is going to get you in your sleep?
Report Post »We don’t fear fairy tales but rather the lunatics that still believe in fairy tales.
Now go play emperor or god somewhere else.
nevergofullpotato
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 5:40pm@johngalt so you‘re saying we’re a “christian” nation and that makes us wealthy and your username comes from a devout atheist who abhorred christianity?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!? dafuq.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 11, 2012 at 7:12pm@pontiac
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on August 12, 2012 at 12:55am@The_Cabrito_Goat
Come back when you’re ready to join the discussion about Christians institutionalizing slavery and owning slaves in America. IOW trying to justify a nations wealth on the work ethics of christians centuries ago is laughable. Even today most christians I know are overweight and drawing disability or on some sort of financial aid.
————————-
Report Post »20 And if a man strikes his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dies under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 But, if he continues a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his “property”.
————————-
MLeonova
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:22pmI hope this article isn’t confusing Atheist with Agnostic. There’s a difference…
Report Post »RealAmerican2
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:50pmThe difference is miniscule and comes down to symantecs. Both Agnostics and Atheists don’t believe in God or gods. While one group (Atheist) doesn’t believe there is a God or gods that exist, the other group (Agnostic) isn’t sure if a God or gods exist. Either way, the end result is both groups not believing in God or gods of any kind. Agnostics take offense to being confused with Atheist, because they like to be viewed as “open-minded”. Atheists are completely non-believing, closed-minded and not accepting of even the possibility a God exists. So, whether you think there is a possibility that God exists, or are absolutely convinced there is no God, doesn’t change the fact that both groups are non-believers. In a nutshell: Agnostics are open-mined Atheists.
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:28pm“Atheists are completely non-believing, closed-minded and not accepting of even the possibility a God exists.”
I’ll consider the possibility that God exists if I get shown some compelling evidence. Until then…
Report Post »Curious Visitor
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:38pm@RealAmerican
This is not true. Agnosticism comes from the Greek a + gnostos meaning without + knowledge and deals with claims of knowledge and whether or not something can be knowable. Atheism comes from the greek a + theos meaning without + god and deals with a denial or lack of belief in a god. Therefore a religious person can be Agnostic if they do not think that they can truly know the existence of God, yet believe in it nonetheless. The vast majority of Atheists are also Agnostic because there is as much verifiable, repeatable evidence denying the existence of God as there is promoting it. You will generally only find true Gnosticism, people who are sure that the existence of God is knowable to humans, among religious folks.
You‘re right in that it’s a semantic difference, in that semantics is the study of meaning and these words have two very different meanings.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:41pmvox_populi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:28pm
I’ll consider the possibility that God exists if I get shown some compelling evidence. Until then…
————————————————————————
You do not know how funny that actually is!
You have a brain that could learn a language, form thoughts and direct your fingers to type that thought out on a website created by thinking people.
All be sheer chance? Accident? Lol…
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:24pmTroll,
Does your personal sense of incredulity and lack of knowledge imply god? It only means you do not know. I could assert other reasons equally valid with yours such as we’re in a simulation created by an extra-universal race.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:34pmwvernon1981
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:24pm
Troll,
I could assert other reasons equally valid with yours such as we’re in a simulation created by an extra-universal race.
———————————————————————–
That is equally valid. It is also possible.
However, God gave us His revelation of who He is. He has given us abundant proof of His existence and also His love for us. Any born-again Christian will tell you they have a relationship with God. He is not an “imaginary friend.” He works in our lives.
But whatever…If you want to believe little green men made you what you are then be my guest. There is only 1 truth. I know for fact that I hold it. What you do or believe is irrelevant to me.
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:54pm“You have a brain that could learn a language, form thoughts and direct your fingers to type that thought out on a website created by thinking people.
All be sheer chance? Accident? Lol…”
And any of that proves the existence of the Christian God? Maybe it’s by “accident,” maybe it’s by evolutionary design, maybe it’s done by some alien race (or even Lord Xenu – maybe the Scientologists really ARE right!) Maybe it was even the God of Abraham, but it was the Jewish Yahweh, or the Islamic Allah. Or maybe the Hindu Krishna, or Ancient Greece’s Zeus? After all, they all have the same level of evidence – ancient texts – to back up their claims of divine truth.
This argument of yours doesn’t get you very far.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:06pmWell…Let’s start there then. Would you agree that it is either by chance or by intelligence? Those are really the only two choices, can you think of another? Never mind God or aliens or the theory of evolution. Can we agree that it was either chance or intelligence?
If you decide that what we perceive is impossible by chance then it must, by default, be by intelligent design.
It is up to you to figure out who the designer is, but He left His fingerprints all over the place! In fact, He even gave us direct, written revelation who He is, what His plan for us is, and how He will carry that plan out!
You can get sidetracked by little green aliens, golden tablets, witchcraft, money, psuedo-science or anything else…That is our nature…But He is easy to find and once you find Him the blinders will be removed. Sure, you don’t believe me now…I understand…I was where you are standing once too.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:00pm@ VOX…..They most certainly do NOT all possess the same level, quality or amount of evidence. That is a comment made by someone who has never investigated their opinion. Thank you….
Report Post »sweetgold
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:28pmThere is ?????
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 12:48amVox, religion is ingrained into their character. You can’t kill it off with infallible logic no matter how hard you try. They wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if they figured out they slaved their life away without a reward at the end. They will continue lying to themselves until the end. That‘s how they’re programmed…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 7:46am@ SWEETGOLD….Most definitely. Do you even know how to evaluate works of antiquity? There are 3 broad areas of evidence collection. Let’s see if you even know what those 3 basic areas consist of. If you do then I would be happy to summarize that evidence in each category for you my friend. I will await your response. Thank you…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 7:51am@ PONTIAC…..How about you give me your BEST logical argument against the existence of God. Let’s see who possess logic. You nor I should have a moments hesitation if we believe we have the truth, we should have no trouble arguing our points at all. I will let you go first and please do give it your best shot….Thank you ahead.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:58amSLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 7:51am
@ PONTIAC…..How about you give me your BEST logical argument against the existence of God. Let’s see who possess logic. You nor I should have a moments hesitation if we believe we have the truth, we should have no trouble arguing our points at all. I will let you go first and please do give it your best shot….Thank you ahead.
———————————————————————————-
(crickets)
-In Spongebob narrator voice, “Three weeks later…”
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:11am@ PONTIAC….BTW, Nothing can show logic to be infallible, to ‘show’ in this context would mean to support logically, which requires logic and would be self-contradictory to destroy it’s own assumptions. Logic is a system of rules which preserve non-contradiction by identifying contradiction in the process of inference. One can in fact reach a reasonable and logical conclusion and may still in fact be wrong. Multiple logical conclusions can be reached without breaking any laws of contradiction, but only one can ultimately be fully true as it reflects the reality of what it describes. Since this is the case, describing logic as infallible is illogical in and of itself. Thank you….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 11:31am@ TROLL…I will continue to wait, but I am not optimistic I shall ever see a response. Fight on….
Report Post »nwaiting2
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:14pmThis is a tricky subject to quantify. Lots of intolerance expressed in comments.If you talk about God with anger you have betrayed yourself. If you condemn others you condemn yourself. We all fall short. God made people in image reflected respect this even if you don’t agree with them please. Have a nice day.
Report Post »watashbuddyfriend
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:34amHard to say which country is most religious (relationship with Satan), but, what I would like to see are the countries who are most Christian (relationship with Jesus Christ).
Report Post »1snake1
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:41amI love that you actually believe in magical beings. Do you believe in angels, fairies and unicorns too?
Report Post »Tradition Dies Here
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:50amRelationship with Satan? Well, its quite clear then who’s helping humanity more! Certainly it isn’t God, but rather Satan, who leads countries to great prosperity, higher education, and greater all around civility! Highly irreligious countries like Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Austria, and the Czech Republic, all under Satan’s rule!
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:04pmJesus was sent to JC Penny’s to wash the feet of gays with Listeren because it kills athletes foot. When Jesus was given the sins of the world he had to walk in th same shoes as the Gays so he could rightously judge them and make atonement. There are no males or females in heaven.There is no Mariage in heaven. Jesus Christ Penny
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:12pmTradition Dies Here
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:50am
Relationship with Satan? Well, its quite clear then who’s helping humanity more! Certainly it isn’t God, but rather Satan, who leads countries to great prosperity, higher education, and greater all around civility! Highly irreligious countries like Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Austria, and the Czech Republic, all under Satan’s rule!
Report Post »————————————————————————-
Absolutely right! You do not realize the wisdom in what you wrote here. There is a reason for the saying “sell your soul to the devil.” He cannot touch God’s children, but he certainly can work on nonbelievers. The state of science today is the perfect example of this. It is easy to laugh about believing in unicorns and fairies, but believing in elephants turning into whales or apes into humans is just as stupid.
Tradition Dies Here
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:45pmHumans did not turn into apes. Humans ARE apes/hominoid; we are anthropoid mammals, and this is fact. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of reason and reality.
Report Post »hi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:49pmsnake
Report Post »You believe in in the time magic fairy. Given enough time, nothing turns into people.
hi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:53pmTradition Dies Here
Report Post »Humans and apes cannot produce offspring. Therefore they are distinct, separate species according to science not someone making up classifications.
Tradition Dies Here
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:16pm“Apes are Old World anthropoid mammals, more specifically a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea. The apes are native to Africa and South-east Asia.”
“Hominoidea (order Primates, suborder Simiiformes) A superfamily that comprises the Hylobatidae (gibbons), Pongidae (great apes), and Hominidae (humans).”
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:52pmUsing faulty science to try and prove faulty science is circular reasoning. Man is not an ape, there are more differences that similarities. Just for starters, take the baculum. Like most mammals apes have a penis bone. It is a mechanical system, allowing the penis to enter the female for sex. Humans do not have one, we have a hydraulic system that uses blood pressure.
Now think…How did we get from one to the other through evolution? The baculum is a more fool-proof system, did we evolve backwards?
the foramen magnum is another major difference, and an easy way to tell what is human and what is ape.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:02pmHI — actually it’s unknown if humans and apes can interbreed. In fact, early in split between humans and chimpanzees, there may have been interbreeding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html?_r=1&ex=1171515600&en=50ac61aa1c998951&ei=5070
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:14pmTROLLTRAINER — yes, apes do have a baculum but it is reduced to such a degree as to be insignificant, only a quarter of the size of the male’s genitals, 10 – 20 mm, compared to genital length of 4 cm – 8 cm (gorilla and chimpanzees, respectively). My, what you will find on the internet.
It has been proposed that humans completely lost their due to selective breeding by females. A penis that relies on blood pressure is a great barometer of the male’s health, as a variety of ailments, physical and mental, can prevent it from working properly.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:21pmBruce P.
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:14pm
TROLLTRAINER — yes, apes do have a baculum but it is reduced to such a degree as to be insignificant…
—————————————————————–
Ah! My bad. So male apes do not mate…
Where did you get that? Wikipedia?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:37pmTROLLTRAINER — where was it said that male apes do not mate?
No one said that. Yes, they do have a baculum but also rely on blood pressure as humans do.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:45pmTROLLTRAINER — no one said great apes do not mate. While they do possess a baculum, they more rely on blood pressure for mating.
Source: Primate Sexuality — http://tinyurl.com/cxmssg7
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:13pmHmmm, could you give me a quote and reference where you find this? It would seem the information we want is in the 340s and that chapter is not included.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:59amGuess Bruce P. is not coming back…
Report Post »Not Quite
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:29am73% to 50% is not -13% it’s a -23%.
Report Post »So really the USA is at the top of the list with Vietnam for decline in religion.
It’s no wonder things are going so well here. (queue sarcasm for idiots)
Not Quite
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:36amDoh, okay so the quality of that image isn’t the greatest…kind of hard to tell the difference between a 5 and a 6.
Report Post »Quixotic-911
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:29amThis is why the Chinese scare the crap out of me!
Report Post »Tradition Dies Here
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:41amIgnoramus.
Report Post »Dubliner
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:49amMost of the rest of the world is more scared of the US. Mind you maybe that‘s because we can’t read mandarin and can read the scary nutty stuff that commenters on websites like this espouse. BTW only the USA and Islamic countries gets it’s knickers in a twist over evolution. It‘s a cultural issue that doesn’t register in western countries besides the US.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:47pmDubliner – That’s b/c the rest of the Western world has this messed up mindset that it’s worse to say a racial slur than it is to commit murder.
Report Post »Curious Visitor
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:49pmAnd statistics on Chinese disbelief are very misleading. During the glory days of the communist party, Chinese people were basically forced into a position of nominal disbelief. However, the Chinese generally subscribed to either Buddishm, Confucian philosophy, ancestor worship or a combination of these things. It‘s very easy to say you are giving up God when your belief system doesn’t revolve around a strong mono or polytheistic set of gods. This doesn’t mean the Chinese people are without superstition, far from it. Where we in the west place our magical thinking into solitary prayer, going to church, lighting incense, taking communion, etc. the Chinese place their belief in nonsense like chi, feng shui, herbals medicine and strange dietary customs. This is a similar situation in Vietnam.
True disbelief on a wide scale can currently be found only in those Scandinavian hellholes, Japan and, increasingly, continental Europe.
Report Post »Matt
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:21amThese statistics are incorrect. They include the majority of Catholics. Just like you do not include people who watch, but do not participate in sports as athletes. 90% of Catholics should not be considered “religious”.
If you apply that standard, the most religious nation is hands down the USA. Its not even a close comparison when done that way.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:34am90% of Catholics should not be considered “religious”.
Very close minded and ignorant statement.
Keep spreading the hate, that’s what Jesus would want.
Report Post »RealAmerican2
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:58pm90% of Catholics should not be considered religious??? Wow! Sounds like someone has the exclusive, inside scoop on Catholics!!! Would love to see the data that backs up this statement, as I‘m sure it’s scientific and honest.
Report Post »1snake1
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:13amThere is nothing funnier than watching the panic and obfuscation of the irrational god-bots as their mythology becomes more and more irrelevant. Tell me again how old the universe is?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:24am562 years. Prove me wrong.
Report Post »Quixotic-911
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:36amGod created the universe approximately 14 billion years ago but, if you account for the relativistic time dilation due to the expansion of the universe the math comes out to about 7 days. Of course from Gods perspective no time has passed.
Report Post »Raven249
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 3:59amOw.. That bit of time dilation whatever just killed my brain. Advanced science really ain’t my thing, but that’s an interesting possibility. Both parties are close in describing the age of the universe. Kinda amusing, really.
Report Post »carl_in_ohio
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:12amonce again we have a “poll” created by “professionals” that is a waste of time.
So, countries like India, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia – are neither overly religious or atheistic??
Report Post »Really??
What is the source of their quantitative date??
this is POOR, WEAK JOURNALISM.
1snake1
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:23amIsrael is not particularly religious actually, and anyone who has visited can tell you that. You should see Tel Aviv on a Saturday night. It puts Sodom to shame.
Report Post »1snake1
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:26amI love the open anti-intellectualism from the right.
Report Post »hi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:46amSnake
Report Post »hi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:11amThe study should be ‘Have you asked Jesus into your heart or not.” Otherwise the study has no meaning since the non-Christians should be lumped with the atheists.
New topic…I’ve noticed a lot of places we stereotype as far-gone liberal actually have so many genuine, conservative Christians. For example, there are a lot of genuine Christians in California.Generalizations on the internet and news do not reflect the real world. There are also the nicest conservative Christians in Oregon. It’s awesome!
Report Post »1snake1
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:17amnon-Christians should be lumped with Atheists? LOL!
That is one of the funniest things I have EVER seen a god-bot write.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:23amYou are quite correct.
Report Post »hi
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:40amSnake, you lump Christians with suicide bombers.
Report Post »loneindividual
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:50am3 choices
Believe in the promise of life given by the God of Faith
or sacrifice your fellow creations (Man and Beast) to keep yourself alive and well for a finite period of time.
Difference between Faith & Fear? Fear only offers Misery & Death
On some level, doing good is a reward cuz you feel good about yourself.
So much for the denouncement of REWARD/PUNISHMENT.
Now all you Atheists go worship the God of Reason which DEMANDS human sacrifice to uphold a Feudal/Socialistic system of pacifying the masses while enjoying the crop of the spoils.
In other words….it’s called canniBALism. ( see worship of BAL)
And if you dare…I’m not afraid to get NIHILISTIC on your jack-@$$3$!!!!
Welcome to the Truman Show.
Report Post »seljo1701a
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:01amWhere are all the Islamic/middleast countries? They don’t appear anywhere…
Report Post »OniKaze
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:05amI only see two choices listed there… So what is your 3rd? Or did I just mis-read and overlook it??
Report Post »1snake1
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:16amIs that supposed to be English?
Report Post »McKinley
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:23amHOWTRUTHHURTS,
With the exceptions of China and France, you are describing nations on the most atheist list as they were a generation or more ago. And in the case of the Czech Republic what was forced upon them by a foreign occupier.
One would assume you go around describing the U.S. as a nation created through the genocide of its native peoples.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:15amWe live in a world where the majority believe in fairy tales & myths, while the few that don’t are referred to as insane.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:28amMaybe you should take an open-minded look at why so many people believe in what you consider a myth. What if believers in Christ know something you do not? We do. It is not a question for us as it is for you. Born again Christians are in a living relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. This is simply fact in our lives.
What about other religions? They are seeking the God they know exists. There was no such thing as atheism until around the mid 1800s. General revelation makes clear there is a God and all people groups have always known this. Atheism really is no different, the god they worship is science and man, but it is still a religion.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:50amYou are mistaken on your definition of an atheist. I was born a catholic was baptized, made my communion and confirmation. I became an atheist in the mid 1990′s and we do not worship science or man, the true meaning of an atheist is we simply do not believe in a god or worship a religion. For me to worship science or man that would be counterproductive of being an atheist.
Religious people try to create false definition of atheist and I know of course there are extreme atheist who want to ban religion just as there are extreme christians and their agenda. I don’t want to ban people from worshipping or ban christmas, I love christmas it’s my favorite holiday. I just want to be treated with respect. I am an atheist because I do not believe in god not that you don’t have to believe in a god.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:05amAlso atheism existed way before the 1800′s, it existed from the time religion was created. Many historical figures throughout history were atheist. Remember something at one time it wasn’t safe to be an atheist because the peaceful christian religion would burn you at the stake.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:09amebaybus,
I know many Christians have a bug up their butt…Probably because atheists, like Dawkins, keep shoving it in our face. But speaking for myself, I treat people with respect regardless of race or belief.
Maybe you are honest and simply do not believe anything. But if this is the case then you need to recognize that Big Bang or biological evolution is no more a proven fact than God is and neither one will ever be conclusively proven to the satisfaction of the other side. If you are honest with yourself you will come to the conclusion that we got here in one of only two ways. This universe was either intelligently created or it is simply an unguided accident. We will never “prove” either one.
I always believed in God. I too was raised a Catholic. I split with the church at 16 years old and never looked back. I believed evolution, big bang, and never thought about God. The good Lord helps those who help themselves. I believed the Bible a foolish book of myths written by a bunch of superstitious shepherds 2000+ years ago.
Until I came to the place in my mind that I could not reconcile God and what we today call “science.” One has to be wrong. I came to the conclusion that the universe simply cannot exist without an intelligent creator. To me this is obvious. That has led me down a most eye-opening path. I will not argue facts, but I am not a fool and have good reason for my faith.
I would like to be treated with respect too.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:25am@trolltrainer: Ah, but the universe can be created without an intelligent creator.
How can an entire universe come out of nothing you ask? There is a simple answer.
Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)
If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:39amHmmm…Maybe you’re right then. If you can look at the world around you and not see the precision and perfection it takes for everything to simply exist…If you can even look at the simplest of systems in our world and imagine that it “just happened” then I am not going to bother you with anything more. It would just be a waste of both of our time. As a Christian my job is to tell people the good news of Jesus Christ. That He died on the cross for your sin so you can have eternal life. It is not my job to convince you of this, I could never do that anyway. You may believe anything you wish, it really makes no difference to me. But as you said, I just want to be treated with respect too. In my mind your belief, or lack thereof, is just as foolish as mine is to you.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:57pm@ EBAYBUS…your simplistic summary of the infaltionary theory is a highly speculative and unproven hypothesis as admitted by physicists of all walks. Nonetheless, if we cut right to the chase and I, for the sake of discussion grant you all you stated (which is very specualtive among most all cosmologists), it still solves nohing. The question still remains what produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. That you nor science can answer although some quite fanciful attmpts have been made. There is at present no experimental evidence for an asymmetry in the production of matter over antimatter in the universe. The fact that the asymmetrical universe exists, at this point in time, remains unexplained, and is a deep and compelling mystery to scientists. Quantum fluctuations do not explain this even though some try to suggest it does. William Klauss has explained why it ultimately does not. Nothing is nothing. It is not a vacuum it is nothing. Nothing for particle anitparticle to react as they don’t exist in nothing. So ALL agree the universe had a beginning. The question science CANNOT answer is why or how. Thank you…..
Report Post »stealthman
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:13amIn Nigeria number two in religiosity the religion is mainly the so called Religion of Peace. An Islamicist group today just blew away 15 Christians praying in their church. In the case of Islam, life is not made better by religion. It is at war with everyone including itself.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:01amAtheism is just as much a religion as any other religion – Atheism is the worship of self. There’s a lot of so-called Mono-theistic religious people who say they worship one God too, but who are actually atheists, but they see they get more, and want to be liked. When the world is full of Atheists the effect is like that of a “Big Bang.” When the world is full of atheists it’s an ocean with no form, and there is no gravity to pull people into gatherings of seas.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:18amWhat if I told you your spirituality has a direct affect on the movement of the universe, and vice versa? You probably wouldn’t believe it.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:22amWhat if I told you, that the less spiritual people of earth are, the more the universe flees away from them?
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:23amYou are totally wrong. Research before you post wrong information.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:28amebaybus,
Report Post »I don’t need to research it.
McKinley
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:34amUh, the Big Bang freed the matter and energy and the physical laws that have eventually allowed us to have life and consciousness and a planet that sustains us. It was a very good thing.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:44amNo, there wasn’t a “Big Bang”, the universe was a teaming pool of liquid-like matter, and gravity was introduced – like a Nebula.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:55am@watersRpeople: Ok then, keep reporting wrong information.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:57amer…Neither one of you were there, no one was, so you cannot ever prove how the universe was formed. All you can do is try to interpret what evidence you believe you have.
Big Bang has many flaws and a great number of secular physicists and astronomers totally reject the theory.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:58amFor the truth, all you have to do is observe the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, with the way life grows and teams in the oceans. And even in The creation of the United States shows you the decay from the beginning of the earth. The truth is constantly right in your face, but people don’t want to look.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:03amTruth serves God, yet even lies serve God. But when the world comes to be full of lies – then it’s without form, and void. And leaning lopsided over to the lying side wing – creates an Eagle that won’t fly.
Report Post »Harvey
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:54amI dont believe that the richer you become the more you turn from God.It may be true in some cases but like all the polls that is run for the Presidents races, these polling companys know where to run their polls to get the results they want.Just like all polls they are run to try to change peoples attitudes and opinions.If they was conducted honestly you would see quiet different results.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:27amThat’s exactly what Mark 10:25 refers to: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” It’s not that the rich are evil, it’s just that they are less likely to seek God.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:15amTop 6 Atheist Countries:
1) China: one of the most oppressive countries
2) Japan: history of antagonizing war (including world wars)
3) C.Republic: former USSR – dictatorship
4) France: more and more one of the most intolerant countries in the world
5) S. Korea: just recently (40 years) broke free from an atheistic, dictatorship
6) Germany: the staple of dictatorship and global wars
Yup, blame our troubles on God, faith, and religion
Report Post »dimitrisokolov
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:29amSo why does the US with a population of 300 million have more prisoners than China does with a population of 1 billion people? That would mean the US is more oppressed. How many countries has the US invaded in the past 100 years and how many has China invaded? Religion, because thinking is too hard.
Report Post »TickleMyPickle
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:48am@dimitrisokolov
maybe it’s because China executes their prisoners more than the US…thus reducing the prisoner population. Just a guess…
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:08amCapital punishment in the People’s Republic of China is usually administered to offenders of serious and violent crimes, such as aggravated murder, but China retains in law a number of nonviolent capital offenses such as drug trafficking.
The People’s Republic of China executes the highest number of people annually.
Watchdog groups believe that actual execution numbers greatly exceed officially recorded executions; in 2009, the Dui Hua Foundation estimated that 5,000 people were executed in China — more than all other nations combined.
The precise number of executions is regarded as a state secret.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:31pmWow! China executes almost as many people per year as the Catholic inquisition did!
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:26pm@trolltrainer
1) Catholicism is NOT Christianity. Catholics pray to Marry and other saints. To Christians this is paganism.
2) Catholic Inquisition occurred ONCE
3) Atheist China kills more PER YEAR than the Catholics did in the ENTIRE inquisition.
4) Atheist Hitler & Germany as well as Atheist Stalin & Russia killed more than ALL religious wars COMBINED!!
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:06pmHowTruthHurts
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:26pm
@trolltrainer
1) Catholicism is NOT Christianity. Catholics pray to Marry and other saints. To Christians this is paganism.
— I disagree. Catholics do many things that are…beyond Scripture is putting it nicely…But do they fulfill the requirements for salvation? I am sure many do and are, therefore, Christians.
2) Catholic Inquisition occurred ONCE
— Once? Yeah, from like 1100 A.D. to the mid 1700s A. D.
3) Atheist China kills more PER YEAR than the Catholics did in the ENTIRE inquisition.
– Wanna bet? But let’s not put all the blame on the Catholics! Protestants also killed many of their brothers and sisters in Christ.
4) Atheist Hitler & Germany as well as Atheist Stalin & Russia killed more than ALL religious wars COMBINED!!
–You are trying to make a correlation where none exists. I understand your motives, you are defending the faith…Against me, whom you perceive to be an atheist I suppose. Take a hint, look up my posts my brother…
Man kills man, regardless of his faith or lack thereof. Christians are just as guilty of murdering their fellow man as atheists. To try to prove that Christians are worse because more Christians have killed throughout Western history is a silly and moot point also. Of course they did, when EVERYONE was a Christian. It is all a moot point.
In any case, I was just taking a cheap shot at my good friend By Faith. I am sorry you got caught
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:53pm@trolltrainer
1) You are right, I did misunderstand your post. However, I would like to discuss certain points with you.
2) When I stated that Catholics are not Christian, I wasn‘t speaking from man’s view. I was speaking from the Bible’s view. According to the Word, you can’t just “meat” a quota and then add some sin to that and be saved. You have to put aside sin. Especially presumptuous sin. Idolatry is one of the most rebuked sins in all the Word. Praying to false gods (Mary & the saints, though this practice is not to the fault of Mary nor the saints) is indeed idolatry.
3) I believe it’s fair to presume most understand the term “Christian” to mean “believer in, or follower of Christ”. If we then agree this is a accurate, then Catholics are most certainly NOT Christian. Christ did not pray to false intercessors (May & the saints). In fact, Christ is our ONLY intercessor. Even those who intercede on earth do so to Christ. No prayer reaches the Father without first going through Christ.
4) My point was never to insist that a demographic’s value should be bases on who is less evil. My point was that atheists spread this false view that all evil is caused by religion. The truth is, some of the greatest dictators and oppressors of all time were atheist (Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-il)
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:28pmHowTruthHurts
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:53pm
2) …
– Put sin aside? Yes and no. Certainly John tells is in 1 John 3:6:
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
But Paul says in Romans 7 reveals the state the saved believer is in while remaining in this world:
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Read the whole chapter. We are all sinners and remain sinners even though we are saved. Of course we, as believers, are convicted of our sin.
3)…
–You will have to take that one up with By Faith! I do not judge nor do you! Only God knows what is in a man’s heart. Mormon, Catholic, JW…They all believe differently than I do. But even what we consider orthodox Christians will disagree on many things. I think we should spend more time in our own walk with Christ than everyone else’s. If my brother errs against Scripture I will kindly correct him, but it is not my problem but his.
4) ….
–Atheists play dirty but so do Christians. An honest debate is hard to find, especially when the topic is so important.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:29pmTo the aptly named Troll Trainer
Still spreading lies. Here is some more free education.
The Inquisition was intended not to convert people, but to find people who were outwardly claiming to be Christian but secretly practiced another religion, such as people who had become Christian outwardly, but who were still secretly practicing anti-Messianic Judaism, Islam, or Albigensianism, this last being a religion claiming that there are two gods, one good and one evil. The inquisition was thus an attempt to protect the purity of the Christian community.
True. Protestants had a counter-inquisition that killed Catholics. Thousands of Catholics were killed in England alone after the Reformation struck there. The same thing was true in Ireland and other areas where the Reformation came. John Calvin, for instance, was known for burning people at the stake.
In addition, Protestants were the big witch-burners. Witch burning never caught on in Catholic countries. When the Spanish Inquisition examined the cases of reported witches, it almost invariably concluded that the charges were false and the accused were not guilty. But tens of thousands of supposed witches were burned at the stake, hanged, or drowned in Protestant countries, including the American colonies.
One Inquisition? Wrong again
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:31pmThere have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared. Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations. Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.
Report Post »The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called “the Inquisition.”
Don’t Fear the Facts
But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:32pmWhat must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).
Report Post »Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.
Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.
Phony Statistics
Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony “statistics” generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.
But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, “lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics.” In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions.
by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:34pmWe can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.
Report Post »The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his g.asp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.
Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!
Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.
by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:43pmNow here’s the part were you call me a name and go away
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:50pmHowTruthHurts
It’s one thing to be prejudice and ignorant of the facts, but that does not give you the right to create your own truths.
Catholic’s are the ORIGINAL Christians.
Catholic.com can answer all your questions about the Church. You don’t have to believe anything they say on the website, but at least it might keep you from spouting off ignorantly about something you don’t know or understand.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:55pmMany non-Catholic Christians use Exodus 20:4-5, to “prove” to Catholics that making “any graven images or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath” is detestable to God. But when this passage is read in context, it is not the making of images that is condemned but the worship of them.
Report Post »In fact, five chapters later God commands the Israelites to make two golden statues of angels as part of the lid of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:17-19). That’s an image of something from heaven. Then, in 1 Kings 6, God commands that graven images of flowers and palm trees be made, as well as 15-foot tall statues of cherubim. And in Numbers 21, God commands that a bronze serpent be made and uses it to heal the Israelites. It was preserved for 800 years and then destroyed when some began to worship it (2 Kgs 18:4).
Catholics do not worship statues, because only God is deserving of adoration. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is adamant in affirming this (CCC 2112–2114). When a Catholic bows to a statue, he is not worshiping it any more than King Solomon worshiped Bathsheba when he bowed to her in 1 Kings 2:19. In other words, the honor given to images does not detract from the honor that is due to God. After all, if one member of the body is honored, the others should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).
by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:58pmIf someone enters your house, he should expect to find a picture of your mother. So, when someone walks into a Catholic Church—the household of God—he should not be surprised to find a picture of the mother of God, along with the rest of the heavenly family!
In giving the Israelites a beautiful temple strewn with images (1 Kgs 6), God acknowledged the reason why he gave us our senses: to use them to worship him in spirit and truth.
“Catholics worship statues!” People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex. 20:4–5); “Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold” (Ex. 32:31).
Report Post »It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
John 5:39, God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts
by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:05pmWhat About Bowing?
Report Post »Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, “You shall not bow down to them.” Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:06pmAnother charge sometimes made by Protestants is that the Catholic Church “hides” the second commandment. This is because in Catholic catechisms, the first commandment is often listed as “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3), and the second is listed as “You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.” (Ex. 20:7). From this, it is argued that Catholics have deleted the prohibition of idolatry to justify their use of religious statues. But this is false. Catholics simply group the commandments differently from most Protestants.
Report Post »In Exodus 20:2–17, which gives the Ten Commandments, there are actually fourteen imperative statements. To arrive at Ten Commandments, some statements have to be grouped together, and there is more than one way of doing this. Since, in the ancient world, polytheism and idolatry were always united—idolatry being the outward expression of polytheism—the historic Jewish numbering of the Ten Commandments has always grouped together the imperatives “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3) and “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex. 20:4). The historic Catholic numbering follows the Jewish numbering on this point, as does the historic Lutheran numbering. Martin Luther recognized that the imperatives against polytheism and idolatry are two parts of a single command.
by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:07pmJews and Christians abbreviate the commandments so that they can be remembered using a summary, ten-point formula. For example, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants typically summarize the Sabbath commandment as, “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy,” though the commandment’s actual text takes four verses (Ex. 20:8–11).
Report Post »When the prohibition of polytheism/idolatry is summarized, Jews, Catholics, and Lutherans abbreviate it as “You shall have no other gods before me.“ This is no attempt to ”hide” the idolatry prohibition (Jews and Lutherans don’t even use statues of saints and angels). It is to make learning the Ten Commandments easier.
The Catholic Church is not dogmatic about how the Ten Commandments are to be numbered, however. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities” (CCC 2066).
trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:19pmROTFLMAO!
lol, now we got him/her all worked up!
By Faith, where on earth did you learn Christian history? You have the most slanted view I have ever encountered. You do know most of what you said is false, don’t you?
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:23pmProve it
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:27pmOh yea, I forgot. Information and facts equals anger to Troll
Don’tbe afraid. The trutshall set you free. I only deal with facts, you prefer to only operate with accusatons, half truths and outright lies
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:46pmfacts? Lol, you wouldn’t know a fact if it jumped up and bit you. You are a raving, foaming at the mouth protestant hater! You have less grasp on the true meaning of Scripture than your average atheist. Upon this rock I will build my church. Oh, Peter is a pope! Lol! Why don’t you go squirt holy water on an innocent baby or go eat Jesus! Catholic the first church…Only in your mind and it is a moot point anyway. You just feel the need to claim some kind of apostolic succession to justify your worship of priests and popes. Not me, Jesus is my priest and He is the only one I confess to.
The sad part here is I am defending your faith to truthhurts but because of your sheer close-minded hatred of me I am the one you lash out at! You know what? I couldn’t care less if you are Catholic, Mormon, JW, or Baptist or Lutheran. It is just a name. But you cannot see it. You are misguided and brain washed. Do you even have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Tell me you are born again! I bet you won’t because you are not! Pedobaptism does not count, have YOU committed to Christ? Or are you relying on your church to get to heaven?
Argue with you? Why bother? You are lost in your own little Catholic world. As I said a few weeks ago, quit wasting your time on The Blaze and try reading your Bible. You DO have a Bible, don’t you?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:03amDo you mean I actually got the last word in with By Faith? Hallelujah and Praise the Lord, it really is a miracle!!!
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:22amAnother hissy fit by the Trainer of all Trolls.
Report Post »YOU (once again) take a cheap shot at the Catholic Church. You even said so yourself.
But when I simply point out the facts of the inquisition, you say I’m lashing out at you. Really. You make an untrue statement :
“Catholic Inquisition occurred ONCE— Once? Yeah, from like 1100 A.D. to the mid 1700s A. D.”
I give you the truth and you think I am angry and lashing out at you?
Your latest response continues your pattern. More unsubstantiated accusations with ZERO effort to offer proof of any kind. You need to get over your fear of factual information. I asked you for proof of your statement I was wrong about history. You gave none, just more incorrect innuendo about a church you obviously know nothing about.
I find it very interesting how you called me out with your comment, then when I respond you become passive aggressive and accuse me of attacking you. That speaks to a deep seated emotional problem within yourself. You really need to pray about your fear of knowledge. Having information and sharing it does not make one angry. That is part of your delusion.
by faith
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:23amCommitted to Christ? I will not bother informing you about confirmation. You focus on infant baptism(even thou infant baptism is the most common method around the world) yet you completely ignore or are just ignorant about Confirmation. I know it scares you, but look up Catholic Confirmation and then you tell me if I am committed to Christ. I do not seek, nor do I need your approval of my walk of faith. Suffice it to say my faith is based on Jesus and the Church He created. You want me to read the Bible, can’t you read? In almost every post I give you scriptural text to back up my argument.
Close-minded coming from you? Now that really is funny.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 9:33amI know your are scared of information, so I’ll look it up for you
Confirmation (Catholic Church)
Confirmation is one of the seven sacraments through which Catholics pass in the process of their religious upbringing. According to Catholic doctrine, in this sacrament they receive the Holy Spirit and become adult members of the Catholic Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the Spirit of holy fear in God’s presence. Guard what you have received’. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your heart.
Catholics believe that Confirmation is based on Biblical precedent such as Acts of the Apostles 8:14-17 (from the Bible)
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/confirmation
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 2:37pmOops, spoke too soon! I KNEW my good friend just could not resist. :-)
Let’s see, what lies did he spout this time? Did I say the inquisition only occurred once? I think not, better go back and re-read what was posted! But comprehension was never By Faith’s strong point…In fact…He has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old. Which is why he misrepresents church history!
What else? You really do not say anything at all in 3 long posts…Confirmation? Hmmm… Did you know that I was confirmed? In the Roman Catholic church at age 14. There is no commitment to Christ, they just prod you along in the program. Maybe a few kids are authentically born again in this process…I doubt it because the Catholic church mutilates the true meaning of Scripture…
I ask you once again, plain as day, ARE YOU BORN AGAIN? Yes or no! You will not answer this.
If you are not born again then you are not saved and will not see eternal life but will perish in the Lake of Fire. You realize that, don’t you?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 10, 2012 at 2:48pmOh, BTW, you still believe Anabaptists baptized babies? Lol…
That is proof that your reading comprehension is the problem. You read what you want to see, not what is really there. Yes, many Anabaptists WERE baptized as babies…BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! THEY WERE KILLED for baptizing themselves again AS ADULTS because baptism without a commitment to Christ IS WORTHLESS! So you are, in fact, NOT BAPTIZED! Ironic since you think your baptism offered salvation. It was worthless. You were simply hosed down.
Tomorrows lesson we will do Lord’s Supper, boy, you have an eye opener coming there!
Facts? Nope, you just misrepresent everything.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:46amtrolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:06pm
— Once? Yeah, from like 1100 A.D. to the mid 1700s A. D. (who did you say was lying?)
“There is no commitment to Christ” Just because you did it wrong doesn’t mean everyone else does.
Your arrogance makes you think everyone does confirmation like you?
I’m still waiting for you to offer one shread of evidence.
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:48amYou and others like to tell Catholics we don’t read the Bible. Here is the gospel from yesterday.
Jn 6:41-51
The Jews murmured about Jesus because he said,
“I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
and they said,
“Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph?
Do we not know his father and mother?
Then how can he say,
‘I have come down from heaven?’”
Jesus answered and said to them,
“Stop murmuring among yourselves.
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him,
and I will raise him on the last day.
It is written in the prophets:
They shall all be taught by God.
Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
Not that anyone has seen the Father
except the one who is from God;
he has seen the Father.
Amen, amen, I say to you,
whoever believes has eternal life.
I am the bread of life.
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven
so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven;
whoever eats this bread will live forever;
and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
You like to claim Mary had other children because some unnamed group says: “his mother and brothers”, but here the group says Joseph is his father. I assume this is where you try to teach me about “context”. Don’t bother it is you who takes scripture out of context.
Report Post »Look at the last line: Do
by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:51amTomorrows lesson we will do Lord’s Supper, boy, you have an eye opener coming there!
Posted on 8/10, where is the lesson?
Just another lie from Troll
BTW more accusation are not evidence or proof
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:00am“When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me”
Troll,
Report Post »It’s time for you to stop your childish name calling.
Time for you to put aside your childish ways.
by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:11pmAnabaptists baptized babies
Report Post »January 21, 1525 Anabaptists Took a Baby Step – Dan Graves, MSL
http://www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11629933/
Not a Catholic Website
Because of a baby, the church changed on this day, January 21, 1525. No one realized it at first.
The Protestant reformation in Europe had furthered the recovery of faithful Bible interpretation. When reformers gained control of governments, they replaced the Roman church with reformed churches. For the most part, all people—including newborn babies—were expected to belong to the newly reformed churches(Troll -not baptized by Catholics), just as they had belonged to the old. Newborn babies were baptized into the reformed church and became members simply by being born in their community, much as a person becomes a citizen of the United States by being born there.
Reformation came to Zurich, too, under Ulrich Zwingli’s Bible-centered teaching. The Zurich City Council and most Christians supported his reforms. However, when an eager group of Zwingli supporters looked into the Bible, they found a wide difference between the primitive churches of the first century and the state churches of the sixteenth.
They became convinced that the church wasn’t intended to include everyone. Rather, it should include only those people who really know and follow Christ. “How could a baby join a church,” they asked, “When it knows nothing but to cry and eat?”
by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:11pmThese Christians believed that the only true baptism comes when one is old enough to understand its meaning. Among them were Georg Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Felix Manz.
Report Post »When Grebel’s wife had a baby, the couple decided not to baptize their child although Zurich authorities said they must. Other families imitated the Grebels. The Zurich City Council handled this civil disobedience the same way they would have handled an appeal for trash pick up or a new bridge: on January 17, 1525 they held a public debate on the issue. The people’s representatives listened to both sides and voted for baby baptism. The Council ordered that the “radicals” must no longer meet together, or teach their opinions to others and that all families must baptize their children within eight days or leave Zurich.
With the deadline running out, the Anabaptists must do something. Trudging through the wind and snow on that chilly night, January 21, 1525, they gathered at Felix Manz’ house to decide their course of action. Their meeting was “illegal,” of course, but one thing the little group was sure of–governments have no right to dictate religious beliefs. It was a radical idea then. But once they saw it and grasped it, there was no turning back.
by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:12pmThey talked and worried and prayed. When they rose from their knees, Georg Blaurock had made up his mind. He asked Conrad Grebel to baptize him in the apostolic manner–upon confession of faith. Grebel did, and then Blaurock baptized all of the others who were willing. By that action, the Anabaptist movement was born. “Anabaptist” means “rebaptizer.” It was a name given to them in mockery by their enemies.
Report Post »The Anabaptists obeyed the Zurich council and moved out of town. They started their own church, completely free of state ties, and preached to others. To Zurich this seemed like rebellion and they jailed the offenders. When released, the men preached again.
In the course of time, Manz, Blaurock and many other Anabaptist leaders were executed. (Not by Catholics, but by former fellow church members) The bold stand of those men changed the entire church, but only after oceans of blood had been poured out, trying to control other people’s faith.
Mennonites, Hutterites, and Amish are the direct offspring of the Anabaptist movement. Baptists and many other groups baptize a person only if he or she is old enough to understand the meaning of the act and make a confession of Christ. But all of us have benefited by the Grebels’ decision not to baptize their baby.
by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:25pmAnabaptist means rebaptizer. The group who became the Anabaptist baptized infants until January 21, 1525.
Not rebaptizing because of the Catholic church as you incorrectly stated.
How can the Baptist Church have existed since the time of Jesus when they broke from a group that broke away from the Catholic Church in 1525?
Report Post »by faith
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:37pmhttp://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_003.html
Also not a Catholic site, who claim the Anabaptist baptized babies, before they did not baptize babies
Report Post »vaman
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:49amHAHAHA! This is fantastic. You must be freaking out and no doubt claiming the information is all bunk. The WORST places of EARTH are the most religious. Hey, you can always move to Ghana.
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:06amHA! HA! HA! And you can move to China.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:07amMost Atheistic:
1) China: one of the most oppressive countries
2) Japan: history of antagonizing war (including world wars)
3) C.Republic: former USSR – dictatorship
4) France: more and more one of the most intolerant countries in the world
5) S. Korea: just recently (40 years) broke free from an atheistic, dictatorship
6) Germany: the staple of dictatorship and global wars
What chart were you reading??
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:07amYou do actually have a point in a way. The Church needs persecution to flourish. This has been the case all along. When secular life starts getting good people turn away from God and towards the world. We forget that we need God and start thinking we can do it on our own.
Report Post »Mojoron
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:36amThis is the most un-scientific replication of garbage I have every seen. Religiosity is such a broad term that you can’t define it. After all, most people consider Shintoism, Buddhism, as well as Hinduism not religions in the classic sense. Countries that are Muslim will always be considered more religious since the religion is part of its national political thought. While I agree that there is not religious strength that there was in the 40‘s and 50’s, there is still a large religious block of people out there that still believe in God but do not worship on a regular basis. Atheists that call themselves atheists are more agnostic than atheist in my opinion. Agnostics are a lot like people who can’t make their mind up until its time to vote then they go with the flow. Unfortunately for them, it will be too late to be saved.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:28am“Agnostics are a lot like people who can’t make their mind up until its time to vote then they go with the flow. Unfortunately for them, it will be too late to be saved.”
Wow are YOU completely wrong. I am agnostic because, though I cannot deny the possibility of a deity [because I'm not arrogant], I see no valuable evidence at all that one IS “out there”. But when this “time” you speak of happens, why the hell would I “go with the flow” if there STILL hasn’t been credible evidence one way or the other? That would be superficial and maybe even hypocritical.
And please spare me the stupid [YES, STUPID] comment about it “being too late for them”. Scare tactics found in that doctrine of christianity has to be the most desperate means used to “convert” people. . . . . who will then be strongly coerced into giving their tithe and extra for building campaigns.
Regardless, . . . how utterly petty would it be for some deity to say to someone, “I’m glad you have figured it out now, . . . .but ha ha, too late for you, because you didn’t get it when you were alive. Sucks to be you!” If you could worship that deity, then you are morally bankrupt.
Report Post »SSG Tal
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:47amHey Devon! There is plenty of evidence that can be discussed but at the end of the day it isn’t about evidence since evidence is viewed through the lens of our presuppositions. I would be happy to share/discuss some with you one on one.
“There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there is never more than one.” CS Lewis
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:21am@ DEAVON….Am I morally bankrupt? By what standard of morality do you make your closing statement? Where does your innate sense of right or wrong come from? If by definition a deity does exist, is it not that deity as creator/authority that even determines what right and wrong is and how it is defined? And if that is the case, then by what authority/standard can you judge that deity immoral? If the deity does not in fact exist then where does your sense of what is morally right and wrong come from? Where did your concept of immoral come from? Can’t be societal evolution because many many societies have a much different morality than you, me or others. Many countries go to war over their differences in morality and beliefs. Just curious how you would respond to these inquiries. Thank you….
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:25amSSG, I would be happy to discuss this with you, outside theblaze. I have a gmail account.
But if our presupposition is based upon the only reality we CAN view through, then it cannot ever be “our fault” for not believing what seems like pretty much any other religion. . . . who ALSO require “faith” that their religion is true and yours isn’t. It is undeniable that all there is “as proof” are the words of just another human being. Humans have been, and continue to be, wrong, misinformed, fooled, etc,. . . . . so testimony that cannot be corroborated by investigation is but hearsay only. If there is really a deity out there, and he holds me accountable under THAT set of requirements, then that deity is entirely unethical/immoral.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:37amOffspring, I was qualifying that comment about those who would “agree with and worship” a deity who would respond as I suggested. If a person finally understands, but is still damned, JUST because he now gets it while separated from his meat suit, then that is wrong. Too much emphasis is placed on “faith”, and some of us cannot [not out of rebellion, but out of an inability] “just believe” something like that.
Morals, . . . . I have no clue where/when they originated. I can only surmise that it was when it became obvious that working together, and safety in numbers, proved more profitable when gathering food or protecting themselves and the young. If that social setup is dependent upon cooperation, then it stands to reason that certain activities would be required for the benefit of the whole. Same as how a lion pride associates with one another. We just had the developed brain, some sort of “emergent property” [for lack of a better term, at this point] that caused our species to develop more awareness of our environment. . . . and to the point where a simple fire or bolt of lightning became something to wonder about, rather than how other animals process these natural phenomena. Again, I do not know when/where/how such properties arose. Maybe someone in the field of neurobiology [or similar field] would have a good answer for that.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:51am@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
‘Can’t be societal evolution because many many societies have a much different morality than you, me or others.’
That makes no sense. Of course societal evolution is responsible for that, you would expect to find different moral codes in different places as societies have grown from different collections of people, in different places. Your premise would be better backed by the opposite; if every country and culture on the planet innately had the exact same sense of morality.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:54am@ DEAVON……First, thank you for your honesty. I guess what I am getting at is that morals, even among societal groups can be very very different and yet their is a sense across all times and cultures that some things are just simply wrong. Theft, rape, murder, destruction of personal property, child abuse, etc…and while all cultures have committed these acts, similarly most people would condemn them now and then in regards to societal norms. This cannot be explained by simply benefiting the society as a whole because that logical conclusion should mean that the stronger societies could morally impose their morality upon the weaker socities and thus secure their proliferation and success/security, however, morality suggests just the opposite, that it is most glaring when extended to the least capable of demanding it. Why is that your/my concept of morality? Where does our sense that regardless of personal or societal benefits, morality would restrain our actions and effect our conscience in some instances to the detriment of the individual or society? And if we cannot prove your position or give a logical answers for the position you hold does that not constitute in some form a “faith” or belief without any real evidence? Thank you….
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:27amYeah, offspring. . . . it is a bit of a quandary for me. . . and maybe someone in a scientific field that knows those answers would be better to answer these things. At some point, we had to have developed a sense of empathy for others. I can’t help but find myself being empathic. I can’t recall exactly where I heard or saw the following statement, . . . but I have seen/read about where an animal [dog, elephant, gorilla, etc] reacted with empathy. . . . or was affected by something that happened. A sense of awareness and/or emotion.
Again, I’m not knowledgeable in how such functions could have come about, but acknowledge that they are most definitely a part of SOME of us. It is clear that there are still cultures who do not “act morally”, . . . for example, how many of the muslims treat the females of their culture. At the same time, there can be a lot of morality/honor with non-religious cultures, so it IS [indeed] an interesting topic.
Now, I know you are coming from the notion that a specific deity created us this way.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:39am@ GUZ…thank you for supporting my argument. It is quite obvious that there are some universally held moral truths across all times and cultures that society would as a whole discourage. Rape, murder, theft, destruction of personal property. As you stated if evoutionary mechanisms are responsible then why are these things even considered immoral? Dominance of one group over another to secure preeminence is what morality, if by evolutionary mechanisms, should be defined as. You cannot argue physical evolutionary ideas then only to change the very mechanism of evolutionary societal morality and remain consistent in your 2 beliefs. That is an illogical construct that presupposes an explanation to substantiate a conclusion about an obvious observation. If the observation is not obvious then no explanation would be needed and yet you, as well as every other athiest I have talked with, knows an explanation is needed. To then state that differences are evidence of no absolute morality is a nonsequitur in that you argue morality somehow confers a societal benefit, yet when those societies commit immoral acts you would judge them immoral based upon your standard of morality and that consists of the logical fallacy of chronological snobbery. Have you ever argued agianst OT laws that seem immoral to you today? CONT……
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:46am@ GUZ….The whole premise is illogical and flawed as it essentially rests on the fallacy of no true Scotsman whereby you change the definitions and principles foundational to evolutionary thought and teaching of said arguments in favor of societal moral evolution midstream to fit your presuppositions that a supposed collective benefit to all rather than competing morality explains all the differences we see. This also does not address in any way the morals held by most through all times and cultures adequately if your assertion be a reflection of reality. In truth, if you suggest there is no absolute morality then truth as we understand it does not exist and no moral judgements about any culture or society could ever be made or argued against, yet I am sure you would argue child abuse, abandonement wrong, rape wrong, murder worong, theft wrong, do I presume too much? If I have presumed rightly by what standard do you call those things wrong? Could they not simply be advanced moral understandings on the societal evolutionary tree? Thank you…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:53am@ DEAVON…thank you friend for your engagment of this topic! I am curious your thoughts when you stated, ” for example, how many of the muslims treat the females of their culture. At the same time, there can be a lot of morality/honor with non-religious cultures, so it IS [indeed] an interesting topic. ” Where does your sense that Muslims treating their woman as they do is wrong come from? Would it not be cultural snobbery to suggest their form of morality is inferior to yours and therefore not able to be pronounced wrong? And I wholeheartedly agree that nonreligious groups can be very moral. That would actually support my assertion that there is a well understood absolute morality regardless of religious beleif instituted by a moral law giver that all innately understand as right things and wrong things becuase huan beings possess a certain dignity that is to be respected. Thank you for all your time. Going to lunch will be back after a bit.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:05pmOffspring, . . . it is food for thought as to how some things developed as “immoral”, such as how WE view the way islam acts towards women. For them, it is quite moral. Probably has something to do with what they believe allah commanded/permitted. I don’t know. But for me, I consider morality as a “golden rule”, of sorts. How I would like others treating me is how I treat others. . . . and I feel that most people would agree with that. When that started amongst our early ancestors, . . . . I just don’t know. All I can say is, . . . this may be a good question to ask a person who studied such interactions. For me, again, it comes back to my own personal empathy. It is why, even though I speak out strongly against many religions, . . . I am often aware of how my comments MAY make that person feel. It isn‘t my intent to hurt anyone’s feelings, . . . and it may not be something that actually happens much. I hope so.
Report Post »SSG Tal
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:21pm@Deavon – I’m just following 1 Peter 3:15 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with GENTLENESS AND RESPECT…” (emphasis added)
I am a retired Intelligence Analyst by trade. I say that as an attempt to hopefully qualify my blatherings as based on emperical observations and quantifiable facts as that is what my job required in order to conduct predictive analysis.
Your logic about a person finally understanding only when he is separated from his meat suit is correct. If you could only understand after death then that is just wrong. God gave you and me a brain with which to think and weigh things, not just blindly follow random nonsense. But, God has relevealed the truth in many different ways so that we can know.
“Since wht may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:19-20
Also, faith is not simply something you believe with no evidnece. Faith is the hope for what you know to be true. There’s a big difference. I would also say that even corroborated testimony would be considered hearsay, otherwise Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would be taken as Gospel. (See what I did there?)
Report Post »guz75
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:25pm@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
You can go as far of topic as you like, but you are still basing what you are saying on the idea that morality just came to be.
You are doing the same thing you are accusing me of, by trying to set the stage so that no matter which way I put something, it supposedly becomes an argument for your point. The points I have made on this subject, in a number of posts, have made my viewpoint quite clear and absolutely fit in with evolutionary science, whether physical or societal. It is you who has reduced a process which has taken tens of thousands of years to some sort of innate human sense.
‘It is quite obvious that there are some universally held moral truths across all times and cultures that society would as a whole discourage,Rape, murder, theft, destruction of personal property ‘.
This comment highlights what I mean, you’re talking about developed societies and cultures, you have to go considerably further back than this. Rape, murder, theft, destruction of personal property were likely not issues that concerned man 30,000 years ago, but it would make sense that many of the same things over time would be considered reprehensible by the same species if they are going to co-exist, regardless of whether they have contact with other groups or not.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:27pm@ GUZ…How am I off topic by deconstructing your argument in a logical fashion? I did not say morality just “came to be”. My assertion is that it has always existed as it flows from the character of who the Creator is as an eternal being and is reflected in the conscience Of that Creators creature, man, just as a writers characteristics are revealed in their written creations. So let’s put your assertion to the test. Would you say that rape “30,000″ years ago was wrong or right since by your argument it was not an issue for those people? How about murder or theft back then? Hunkydory with you? If you say yes then you are saying that murder, rape and theft are not in themselves wrong actions and may be perfectly acceptable actions given the right time and place in a society and if they were OK then why could they not become OK in the future? If you say no then you believe in moral absolutes regardless of your argument. So how do you answer this question?
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:29pm@ GUZ…furhtermore, As far as your rebuttal you have not argued why my conclusions were logically flawed nor did you answer any of my criticisms with reagrd to the illogical nature of your assertions. I have not changed or reduced anything, I have argued your inconsistency of said held positions. Please respond with a logically argued rebuttal that demonstrates your position and we can examine it. As it stands now you have merely offered opinion with no substance. You stated, ” Rape, murder, theft, destruction of personal property were likely not issues that concerned man 30,000 years ago,”…you have evidence of this or do you take it on mere faith? You see your presupposition forces you to conclude this since you have no evidence you think it just may be. In fact are oldest written records demonstrate that man has always had some code of morality that agrees with much of what people today would argue is moral. Before that it is mere speculation on your part. Thank you for your time…..
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:33pm@ DEAVON….Thank you for your honest answers! You are a stand up guy and I appreciate that and I appreciate your time to engage me now and again. You have a good day…..see ya on another thread.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:15pmLikewise, offspring. It is a tough topic. That is for sure.
SSG, I understand what you’re saying, . . . . but for me, “faith” in what others tell me “is true” isn’t good enough. Even IF it could be proven without a doubt that christianity [and its doctrines] were true, I still wouldn’t be able to “worship” something that isn’t there [to me]. Add to that the Old Testament sections that I personally found to be lacking/disturbing/immoral, . . . and you [then] have where I’m at now. Those things I wrote a book about [had some minor revisions, but will be back up on lulu.com and amazon soon].
I can give my back story again, if you haven’t seen it. It has a lot to do with where I am as well.
Report Post »RhetoricalQuestion
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:19amI read, “convicted atheists”.
Interesting that this is global. isn’t it? Maybe the internet is satisfying man’s quest for answers… I mean, relationships don’t really matter, right?
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:11amTake a close look at the countries that are becoming less spiritual and see how that correlates to the murder rate, the increase in rapes and other violent crimes, the increase in abortion rates, the increase in divorce rates, the decrease in education levels and productivity. It all ties together and the fact of the matter is that countries that have strong religious beliefs are just plain better.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:29am“Take a close look at the countries that are becoming less spiritual and see how that correlates to the murder rate, the increase in rapes and other violent crimes”
Vietnam: “The incidence of violent crime, in particular against foreigners, is low in Vietnam and your stay should, hopefully, be without incident.” (Updated August 2012)
Ireland: Total crimes have decreased from about 500,000 in 1995 to under 400,000 in 2007.
Switzerland: “Switzerland is a very safe country to live in or visit. Unlike many other European countries, violent crime including assault and robbery is virtually unheard of in Switzerland.”
France: “In 2010, Paris had an overall crime rate of 11.8% (per 100,000 people), however ¾ were non violent theft (so only 2.95% were violent crimes). The rest of France’s statistics were significantly lower, so low it seems like everyone here is too occupied with their baguettes and butterflies to want to strangle each other. Conversely, the United States has a violent crime rate of 5% (per 100,000 inhabitants).”
South Africa: “The murder rate has increased by an order of magnitude in South Africa during the last 40 years, though it has fallen from 66.9 per 100,000 people in 1994–95 to 37.3 in 2008–09. Between 1994 and 2009, the murder rate reduced by 50% to 34 murders per 100,000 people.”
So, taking the first 5 on that list, the answer for crime is “lower, lower, lower, a bit lower, and lower.”
Report Post »RhetoricalQuestion
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:39amFor LOCKED:
Regarding your facts about Switzerland: Don’t their gun laws contribute to the high safety? They have a respect for their former military. Those who would like to change their gun laws cite the suicide rate as one of the top concerns. Even so, attempts at reform have been “shot down” (pun intended).
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:56am@Rhetorical
I‘d say a variety of factors contribute to Switzerland’s extremely low crime rate. However, I think it’s extremely clear that them becoming more atheist has not had the negative impact that @Coloradomaverick claimed. The answer is either that becoming more atheist is a GOOD move (which I don’t really believe either), or that correlation =/= causation, and the religious views (or lack thereof) of a country do not provide a direct change in violent crime rates.
I’m a Christian, but I’m also not a fool. I think plenty of people call themselves Christians, but use their faith as a cover for inhumanity. I don’t think a high amount of self-identifying “religious” people make a country less violent or criminal; at the very least, becoming less religious certainly hasn’t had a negative effect on criminality in many of these countries.
I’d argue that many of these less religious countries likely got turned off by all the false prophets, thousands of different Christian sects claiming an exclusive road to Heaven, and by the mega-preachers who build huge churches and temples while the poor and hungry wither outside. Many Christians even in the US seem to have forgotten Christ and just accept their preacher’s words. Perhaps the less religious will come back when we believers start setting a better, more Christ-like example.
Report Post »RhetoricalQuestion
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:18am@Locked
Thank you for your reply.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The only adjustment I (would like to suggest) to make your comment is that those used “the faith” not “their faith” as a cover (because what they place “their faith” in was concealed).
I recently heard, but cannot confirm the actual source, (although, as a general statement, hits the mark). Supposedly, when Napoleon attempted to take down the Church a Bishop replied, “What makes you think you can accomplish what Priests, Bishops, Deacons ahead of you have tried?”
The truth is, these individuals have used the cover of the Church to satisfy their own lusts, and she has paid bitterly for it. I liken it to the worst form of identity theft.
When one examines Her closely, and honestly, they will find Her to be innocent of all accusations made against Her, and rather, will shine the light on the false representatives, of which they will have to give an account.
Report Post »ApostolicIlx
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:34amHey Locked, you shouldn’t read the brochures. Crime rate in Viet Nam has never dropped. The only that changes is who gets paid. My sister in law is still trying to get out 7 years down the line. The corruption is so horrible the US State Department fired everyone and re-hired new staff like that will solve the problem. LOL!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:36am@Rhetorical
“When one examines Her closely, and honestly, they will find Her to be innocent of all accusations made against Her, and rather, will shine the light on the false representatives, of which they will have to give an account.”
Absolutely agree, well said!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:53am@Apostolic
“My sister in law is still trying to get out 7 years down the line.”
This sounds concerning; I’ve known several people who have gone to Vietnam for vacation or business, and only one ever had a problem (wallet was pickpocketed). What do you mean she can’t get out?
Here are some (dated) facts on Vietnam: “According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 2000 was 1.08 per 100,000 population for Vietnam, 1.10 for Japan, and 5.51 for USA. For rape, the rate in 2000 was 1.64 for Vietnam, compared with 1.78 for Japan and 32.05 for USA. For robbery, the rate in 2000 was 1.48 for Vietnam, 4.08 for Japan, and 144.92 for USA.”
It might have changed a bit in the last decade, but most assessments still say its crime is much lower than other developing countries in Asia.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:07amI can‘t believe that in the year 2012 so many people still believe in a fairy tales about god’s, who worships the better god and who‘s going to kill someone because they don’t believe in my god.
If you need a god to keep your moral values then you need help.
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:12amI’ll pray for you. God will have mercy on your soul.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:14amAnd I’ll pray to Little Red Riding Hood for you.
Report Post »NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:18amWhere do your morals come from, genius?
Report Post »bald stick
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:24amWhen you have no God, you have no morals. Who is it to say that anything is wrong? I’ll try and say it another way. What‘s to say that Jerry Sandusky is wrong for what he did to those young boys if we don’t have moral guidelines set up by God? Why is it wrong to take someone‘s stuff and give it to another who hasn’t earned it? Are we to trust a man made government to decide for us what is right and what is wrong? Even if you think all life originated from prehistoric muck, the utility of a God by the atheist still benefits YOU!! If our rights and morals come from GOD, who has the right to change them? If our rights come from man, we are doomed. God help us when we rely on governments to give us our moral values when they (government) have no values of their own.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:32am“When you have no God, you have no morals.”
This is completely false. Are you a Christian, as I am? My morals come from my understanding of the Bible, but that doesn‘t mean that people who don’t read the Bible don’t have a set of morals that often match mine. Most are taught them from their parents, or society, or through empathy.
Incidentally, lying is against Christian morals, but you just lied and said anyone who doesn’t believe in God has no morals. Something to think about.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:32amthe Moral Fairy, of course. yours? (say the Bible, say the Bible, say the Bible)
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:35amOff topic, just a little story about my life.
Many, many years ago I was a twenty-something working as a line cook at Red Lobster. I would take a break in the bar and talk to the silverware rollers, both were little old ladies. One day the topic got onto Adam and Eve. These foolish little old ladies actually BELIEVED this crap!!! They thought God created Adam and then actually formed Eve from his rib. They believed the whole shebang, the whole foolish story set aside in Genesis. Of all the stupidity…I mean, never mind what science knows as FACT, right? So in my arrogant twenty-something way I started making fun of these ladies, I mean, it was all in good fun, right?
They were right and I was wrong. Now, many years later this is one of the biggest regrets in my life. They were loving and patient with me and they understood my stupidity. It took me many years to find Christ, and ironically it was the creation/evolution debate that finally did open my eyes. I would like to think that in their little, loving way it was actually these two ladies, and their uneducated certainty of what they believed that set me on my way.
I pray maybe someday you will look back at your own stupidity and realize that you were blinded to truth. I am sure Vivian and Louise are smiling down on me now and I cannot wait to see them again.
God bless you.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:36amMorality is a human construct stemming from a very long gradual process of self awareness and in turn an ability to understand that the things that hurt us, hurt others (empathy). Of course in countries where organised religion is prevalent religion affects morality, but morality also pre-dates any organised religion. To suggest no religion/God means no morality is at best naive, if anything all religion does is over complicate things and allows prejudice to become part of the moral code.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:40am@ebaybus: You are confused. We don’t need a god to keep our moral values. We need Christ to cover our sins because, even with moral values, we fail to always do the right thing. Our salvation, provided by The Lord, is so awesome even angels, demons, and intelligent alien life forms are envious; The latter of which have been trying to bring themselves into the fold for centuries. We are eternal beings regardless of what anyone believes. Read up, study, repent, believe and join the Body of Christ. Maranatha!
…and may The Lord bless you.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:43am@trolltrainer: Cool story! and thanks for sharing and being honest.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:56am@ GUZ….My question is if morality is a human construct then who decides what is right or wrong when there are some who hold to one morality and others who hold a different morality on the same issue, the majority rules or the minority? In fact, why is there even a right or wrong to begin with? I mean if it is relative then there really is no such thing as morality at all, right? Final question, you stated that morality predated religion, how do you exactly know this or what evidence do you possess of this assertion? Since religion was initially transmitted by oral tradition then later written down we can date the written records but everyone knows relgion existed well before that time and since it was orally transmitted we have no earthly idea how long it existed before the written record. So, in light of that I would say your conclusions are mere opinion made to sound factual in order to support your presupposition that there is no God. Thank you….
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:29am@Meyvn, Ok and what about the billions of people that are very religious and don’t believe in Christ? What about ancient people that worshiped the sun as a god and were good moral people? Are they going to hell? If you believe they are then you are part of the problem.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:58am@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
In terms of our development of morality you can see the building blocks in early man and in other species; social groupings and behaviours and working together (there is plenty of evidence of early man working together to hunt) creates a necessity for understanding another’s point of view. Over time these initial basic rules develop alongside the skills to communicate and co-operate, creating a more developed code allowing for a more comfortable and productive co-existence.
Of course moral codes differ. Different countries and cultures have developed in different ways and at different rates, but the point I was disagreeing with is that without Religion/God there would be no morality and as I said before morality as you know it may have been influenced by religious teachings, but has been tens of thousands of years in the making.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:19amebaybus
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:29am
@Meyvn, Ok and what about the billions of people that are very religious and don’t believe in Christ? What about ancient people that worshiped the sun as a god and were good moral people? Are they going to hell? If you believe they are then you are part of the problem.
——————————————————————————————————
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
I could go on. There are several theories about what happens to the unevangelized. I, personally, cannot get behind inclusivism or universalism, the Bible seems clear that the only way into heaven is through a conscious surrender to Christ. What about post-mortem evangelization? Maybe…I am doubtful. I tend to believe that God, in His foreknowledge, placed those He knew would not make the choice for Christ in the positions where they never heard the gospel. After all, narrow is the way and few are truly saved in the big scheme of things.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:22amDoes my belief diminish free will? I think not, though I admit it can be argued. I also admit my explanation is highly unsatisfactory. What about a missionary that goes into a new area and successfully evangelizes 3/4 of a tribe. If he had gone in a generation previously would not at least 1 heathen have been reached? Logic says yes, but God is sovereign.
But what problem are “we” a part of? Just because you reject truth it is not a problem. Just for kicks let’s say God really is vengeful and wrathful (which He is) with no component of love. So what? It changes nothing for you! The choice remains, you do not have to like it.
Report Post »bald stick
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:00amLocked.
Report Post »Perhaps I should clarify. You are correct that folks can have morals without God. However, where did these morals come from? Most Americans have Judeo-Christian values. Other countries have Islamic values which tell you if a woman is raped, she must have 3 witnesses to bring any charges against a man. I used that as an example. Morals can be whatever one says they are. Our countries moral compass comes from a Judeo-Christian God. They haven’t evolved through mans wisdom. Mans wisdom is what’s breaking down morals. Why get married? because God said so. Why not just do to whoever, whenever and whatever you want? because God says so. Do not kill, Do not steal etc. etc. Without God, our country will fall because of moral decline.
guz75
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:27am@BALD STICK
You talk about morality as if it just popped up at some point in the last few thousand years. I visited the caves at Lascaux in France last year, not only are there the paintings of animals, but there are also a lot of symbols which they’re still trying to decipher, which appear to be some form of communication. These date back 35,000 years and are some of the earliest signs of man co-operating. For man to continue to co-operate there had to be rules, so the concept of a moral code that we have now has been in development for tens of thousands of years.
Religion I believe helped to bring some order to morality, but religious morality has also been abused and used to justify prejudice and control people. On the grand scale of things religion is a blip on the map of morality’s evolution.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:30am@Bald Stick
Thank you for the response.
“You are correct that folks can have morals without God. However, where did these morals come from?”
As mentioned before: taught by parents, learned through empathy, taught by a different religion, or learned from society at large.”
Most Americans have Judeo-Christian values. Other countries have Islamic values which tell you if a woman is raped, she must have 3 witnesses to bring any charges against a man. I used that as an example. Morals can be whatever one says they are.”
Exactly my point. -Most- Americans have morals derived from Judeo-Christian origins. However, not all the values are from there, and many vary wildly. For example, remarriage after divorce is sacrilegious to Christians. But many Christians have no problem doing so. Do they then not have Christian values? They must have some other source telling them that, despite the Bible saying adultery is the only reasons for leaving a marriage, maybe leaving an abusive or worthless spouse is still a -good- thing.
“Our countries moral compass comes from a Judeo-Christian God. They haven’t evolved through mans wisdom.”
I disagree, as cultures who have never read the word of God can still display “moral” behavior.
I suppose you could argue God influences them even without the Bible, but I don’t think that was your point.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:03pm@ GUZ…You stated, “Morality is a human construct stemming from a very long gradual process of self awareness and in turn an ability to understand that the things that hurt us, hurt others (empathy). ” So morality is ultimately just borne out of a selfish self-centered need for self-preservation so that others will not harm us in return if we harm them? Is selfishness wrong or right? Also, doesn’t this presuppose the idea of vengence? Where did that come from? In fact all of human history argues against your assertion that morals developed to preserve peoples and people groups as differences in morality are at the root of all wars and conflicts which has always been the plight of man thorughout all of history. If it is not borne out of a need for self-preservation then why did it “develop”, why would empathy even exist, why would it even be a good or beneficial thing to possess? This seems to be quite the illogical explanation given the whole of human history. Thank you….
Report Post »only easy day was yesterday
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 7:56am50 years of indoctrination has paid off, for the left. We now have a more dangerous,more perverse country, thanks to atheist(left).
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:42am“thanks to atheist(left).”
Don‘t tell SE Cupp she’s a left-winger :-(
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:19amYeah, . . . because somehow the influence of the local churches and the families of those who are leaving the religion were unable to counteract the “enemy”. REALLY THINK about what it says when you insist that “prays/god taken out of the schools” causes people to fall away. Why wouldn’t the church and/or families have more pull? Is it because science has begun to supersede once believed dogmas?
Report Post »Curious Visitor
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:04pmCrime has been dropping rapidly since the early 90‘s and is now the lowest it’s been since the early 60′s and still falling. Perversity seems like a rather subjective concept to me, but feel free to elaborate on what you mean. If you mean people’s sexual preferences, for instance, I fail to see how it’s any of your business. I like happy people so I’m in favor of them doing the things that make them happy, even if that includes wearing a latex suit and having a woman in a bunny rabbit costume melt wax on their nipples. Freedom is a wonderful thing.
Report Post »Treaty
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 7:48amIt’s sure is obvious to me that as Christianity fades in the US that our culture is on the decline. Good luck with a society that has no moral compass.
Report Post »mtsnj
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:25amIt’s the breakdown of the family caused by undue stresses of taxation and interference by the government in general…it’s just a theory…but once they realized they could take in more Taxes if the wife worked they got you right where they want you. Then the greed machine takes over.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:47am@Treaty: For sure… It’s going to be a short (Praise God!), but very rough, road between the here and now and the Millennial Kingdom.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on August 9, 2012 at 4:53pmCute.
Report Post »