Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Society|Tue, Sep. 22 2009 03:30 PM EDT

American 'Nones': More Skeptical than Anti-Religious

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

Nonreligious Americans or "Nones" are no longer a fringe group, researchers state in a new report.

Nones presently make up 15 percent of the total adult U.S. population and the statistic is even higher among young people. Twenty-two percent of 18-29 year olds claim the nonreligious label, a jump from 11 percent in 1990, according to Trinity College's American Nones: Profile of the No Religion Population.

If the younger generation remains nonreligious, researchers point out that the percentage of the U.S. population made up of Nones will continue to rise.

"Will a day come when the Nones are on top? We can't predict for sure," lead researcher Barry Kosmin told USA Today.

Kosmin and Ariela Keysar released statistics earlier this year revealing the rise in the number of Americans who do not identify with any religion over the past two decades. The Nones increased from 8.1 percent of the adult population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008, findings from their widely reported American Religious Identification Survey showed.

The researchers released a follow-up report on Tuesday to provide a more detailed look at who the Nones are and offer predictions on the growing nonreligious population.

Nones may best be described as skeptics. Twenty-seven percent of Nones believe in a personal God. Hard and soft agnostics make up 35 percent of the None population and atheists account for only 7 percent of Nones. Contrary to what many believe, Nones are not particularly superstitious or partial to New Age beliefs. They are, however, more accepting of human evolution than the general U.S. population.

"American Nones embrace philosophical and theological beliefs that reflect skepticism rather than overt antagonism toward religion," the researchers state.

Compared to the general population, Nones are disproportionately male, younger, and more likely to be Westerners and political independents. But researchers found that they are increasingly similar to the general U.S. population in terms of their marital status, educational attainment, racial/ethnic makeup and income.

When it comes to religious roots, researchers found that the majority of Nones came from religious homes (73 percent) and are first-generation Nones or "(de)converts" to non-religion (66 percent).

Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of Nones are former "Catholics" and 11 percent are former "Christians." Almost a third (32 percent) who are currently Nones were Nones at the age of 12.

Researchers note that among those who reported being Nones at 12 years of age, 41 percent switched to join a religion after the age of 12 and 59 percent remained nonreligious. Among those who identified with a religion at 12 years of age, only 12 percent switched to become a None. The retention rate is higher for the religious but the report points out that Nones are growing at the expense of the religious.

"Mathematically, Nones can lose a larger percentage than the religious and still grow as a percentage of the population because they are starting as a smaller percentage of the population," the report states.

If current trends continue, Nones can make up around a quarter of the American population in two decades. But the report highlights that the annual growth rate has slowed at the beginning of the 21st Century. Whereas 1.3 million adults were joining the ranks of the nonreligious in the 1990s, the number of Americans being added to the None population has halved to 660,000 a year since 2001.

Still, researchers caution that because of the Nones' similar social characteristics to the rest of the population, "the transition from a largely religious population to a more secular population may be so subtle that it can occur under the radar as happened during the 1990s."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:47 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    I Corinthians 3:16

    "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

    God is truth. If God lives inside of me, then I have the truth. So for the catholic church to say that they are the only ones with the truth, is to say that they are the only ones saved.

    If there is any "church" that is apostate, it would be the catholic church. It has turned it's back on the Body of Christ. Though they "partake" of it in their little ceremony, they have no knowledge of the true Body. It is a ritual. There is no truth in it. They eat and drink of it unworthily.

  • Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:07 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Rhi,

    You are correct, unfortunately.

    Grace and Peace,
    jim

  • Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:50 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    cheisa, as for their written history, that can be found in the Lamb's Book of Life, where the name of every true believer is both written and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

  • Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:48 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    cheisa, just saw your response to me, so I wasn't ignoring you but my apology for not responding sooner. As for your questions, there writing is the inerrant Word of God, the Sword of the Lord is all they need. As for buildings, a living organism doesn't need a building. It just needs to live and breath and for God's Universal Church that simply means feasting on the Word of God and breathing the love of Christ to a lost and dying world.

  • Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "(which as usual has little to do with the actual article)"

    An accurate observation!

    Who flagged that anyway? Get a thicker skin....

  • Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:33 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 7

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Reading this discussion (which as usual has little to do with the actual article) it is easy to understand why so many 12 year olds are becoming nones. Keep swalling camels and straining gnats. hide

  • Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:04 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    When Scripture speaks of "the Church" it is not speaking of the catholic church, but of the whole body of (true)believers.

    The catholic church is a cross between paganisim and Christianity. Anybody with eyes to see can figure that one out!

    "The Way" is what the first followers of Jesus Christ were called. Yes, He is THE WAY, but that is also what his followers were called.

    In all honesty, the most Biblically sound denomination as a whole would have to be Messianic Judaisim, because they are the ones keeping the Holy days God gave, they are the ones that are keeping Biblical Sabbath, and they are the ones worshiping in the manner instructed by God Himself.

    The Christian church as a whole has no concept of these things, instead cleaving to man made holidays that have their roots in paganisim. And we will not be speaking latin in eternity, but HEBREW. The sanctity of latin is a purely catholic teaching, because the catholic church places themselves far & above anyone else, and their popes on equal footing with Christ Himself, which is simply put, Blasphemy. Jesus is our high priest. We are to confess our sins to HIM, not to some guy on the other side of a curtain. Jesus is our intercessor, not Mary, not St Christopher, or any other man or woman the "church" has promoted to sainthood. ALL of God's children are saints, and do nto require appointment by the caholic heads.

    The caholic of today church as well as many protestant ones are mentioned in Revelation, but nobody likes what John called them, the W__re of Babylon and her wh__e daughters!

    "After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory. And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, 'Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a habitation of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!'" (Revelation 18:1,2).


    "And I heard another voice from heaven saying, 'Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'" (Revelation 18:4,5).

    Symbolically, Babylon represents the confusion of idolatry and false religion, things that the majority of today's churches are rampant with in these last days.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:29 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 3

    "See that's the thing. It starts as your prejudice, and subsequently you look for something in the Bible to justify it."

    It is you, Hm, that have prejudice against the word of God as written. You ignore the fact that porneia is sin and say that anyone who believes the Bible as written is prejudice.

    Prejudice:
    1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
    2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
    3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

    Now, our opinion on the matter is based on knowledge, thought and reason from the Greek. We believe the Bible is reasonable and therefore what it says is reasonable. It is the homosexuals that are hostile by nature against God and what HE says when HE has the word "porneia" in HIS Bible and uses it over 25 times.

    HM...you display clear prejudice everytime you post concerning homosexuality!!!

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 5

    Don't worry, homosexualman. Whether a person dislikes homosexuality out of disgust or not, it's still a sin before God.
    I am one of those who do not share that disgust. I remember meeting a homosexual for the first time as a young pre-teen. My thoughts on the matter? "Oh, yeah. Whatever floats your boat."
    My view of homosexuality comes from the Scriptures. And they say that God created marriage and sex for a man and a woman.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:15 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 8

    Gibbons wrote: "I am like the hundreds of people I've known in my lifetime who view homosexuality with absolute disgust, even though they are not religious. My view of homosexual sex is strongly reinforced by being in agreement with God's view, but like most people, my view formed instinctively."

    See that's the thing. It starts as your prejudice, and subsequently you look for something in the Bible to justify it.

    The Bible commands a lot of other things too, but you don't pay any attention to those, because they do not coincide with a prejudice that you are desperate to cling onto.

    Therefore, your actions and your beliefs are not Bible-based. You are just emphasizing one particular prejudice, one that happens to be clearly harmful to other people, because it coincides with a verse or two in the Bible.

    That is *not* the narrow road that leads to the Kingdom of Heaven. In fact it is *exactly* the common way of self-righteousness that Jesus taught against, because it vaunts your ego and harms other human beings.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:21 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 0

    "There is nothing unbiblical about Peter's position as the rock upon shich the Church was built."

    There is actually a problem. Here's the text:

    Mat 16:17-18 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
    And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    The word "rock" is "petra" which means:

    1) a rock, cliff or ledge
    a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
    b) a rock, a large stone
    c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

    Please note the metaphorical use of the word. His "firmness and strenth" was explained in the previous verse which says it was revealed to Peter by God. The rock which the verse refers to is clearly the revelation by God for a person to see the truth through the Holy Spirit.

    The verse does not say "upon you I will" or "upon this person". As we know from the Bible, the Gospel is foolishness to those who do not believe. It is through the revelation allowed by God that a person sees the truth. Anything else is man centered and not God centered.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:07 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 0

    Many of the "apostolic" traditions even go against what Peter himself taught.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:01 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 0

    Cheisa,

    From a biblical perspective there is something wrong with your proposal that Peter was the supreme apostle which gave rise to a universal office. Many of my Catholic friends here continue to attribute numerous traditions to the apostles but the ironic thing is: the apostles never mention these traditions that you speak of. If your repeated claims are true then kindly show from their own writings (the Scriptures) where we find these traditions . . . The truth is the Scriptures emphatically declare Jesus to be the only Rock on which the church is built.

    Also, posting statements from the church fathers will not do because many of them did not hold to your position. For example, St. John Chrysostom wrote:

    “Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (In Pentecosten, Migne 52.806.75-807.1)

    “The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession. (53rd Homily on St. Matthew) “

    Cyprian of Carthage. Epistle XXVI

    “Just as the one Church of Christ is divided into many members throughout the world, so the one episcopate is expanded into a multiplicity of many bishops united in concord.”

    “Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained, yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power...”

    Read for yourself: http://www.rusjournal.com/patristics.html

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 10

    Online,

    There is nothing unbiblical about Peter's position as the rock upon shich the Church was built. In fact, the early Church recognized just that from the beginning. It is your interpretation, not the Church which is incorrect.

    Again, the exact titles are superfluous and don't need to be found in the NT. The important message we get from Scripture is in regards to Peter's authority from Christ.

    Tatian the Syrian


    "Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).



    Tertullian


    "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

    "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



    The Letter of Clement to James


    "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:22 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "professionals who are good to downright incompetant"

    The sad part about the incompetant ones is that all you need is a shread of humanity and you will learn to care about those around you.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:36 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    " 36He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."

    "15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:24 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 4

    u4eeeahhh said,

    "I greatly respect the fact that you realize that some are here for dialogue and civil discourse. Open opinion sharing without prejudicial blocking of all comments simply because they don't fit within a specific dogma is a reasonable expectation."

    It's a great piece.

    "it's that wishy-washy, middle ground that I say is most likely to fall to the NONE side far more easily than they will be to follow the more rigid path. Course of least resistance."

    True. But it's not the "Course of least resistance." It's the course of least effort. It's the course of least bravery. And it's the course of least genuine peace, love and happiness in the end.
    As the world sinks deeper and deeper into depravity, it will be a lot easier for some to give up hope and give up on the truth, then it will be to face the intense pressure and persecution that is sure to come.

    I completely disagree with the portion of your previous post, where you said that Christians are "...concerned with philosophy and superstitions."
    I've spent countless hours over countless years studying history, archaeology, the Bible, various non-fiction books, science, and the attitudes of man. And I am certain that God created mankind and the Earth, and has allowed thousands of years to pass to settle the issue concerning universal sovereignty (which is what this is all about).
    So I feel that many people who have spent far less time studying these things with the same critical eye, are foolish to speak with so much certainty about such things.

    I am like the hundreds of people I've known in my lifetime who view homosexuality with absolute disgust, even though they are not religious. My view of homosexual sex is strongly reinforced by being in agreement with God's view, but like most people, my view formed instinctively.

    Although I disagree with your positions on the existence of God and homosexuality, I agree with your analysis which is a thousand times more reasonable and based in reality than the repetitive (yawn) nonsense of some others here.

    I know who the primary two are who are flagging all the posts. It wasn't difficult to deduce. One was missing during the week when we had practically no flagging. On his return, multiple posts by people regardless of content are flagged. The second has always been here, and he regularly flags posts he dislikes. If everyone stopped talking to these two, they would eventually go away.

    I greatly respect the fact that you realize that some are here for dialogue and civil discourse, and I look forward to your posts.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Flagged as inappropriate means inappropriate for a Christian website, not inappropriate for any website and not disagreeable to you.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:18 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    amen DP. Our family has seen almost
    every variation of kindness, anger, snubbery,
    professionals who are good to downright incompetant.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:17 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "Thanks for the Autism Society ref. We have little ones in our family with autism"

    Stats now are 1 in every 150 children have some form of autism. Some believe it's closer to 1 in every 100. You do the math. It's a real issue that has increased with the technology boom 50 years ago.

    I went and read that post and replied....

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:12 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "Uninformed, cruel people make life harder for families and the caregivers."

    Unfortunately, in my neck of the woods, too many of them work in the public school and other governmental systems.

  • Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:07 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    DP, Thanks for the Autism Society ref. We have little ones in our
    family with autism, so the insults u4 aimed at Down syndrome children,
    with autism thrown in are personal. See:
    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090919/will-babies-with-down-syndrome-just-disappear/index.html
    autismspeaks.org is also good. There is no known cause or cure yet.
    There are a lot of quacks taking advantage of families though.
    Special needs children and their families are amazing. Uninformed, cruel
    people make life harder for families and the caregivers. It is not a joke.
    They are sometimes verbally and physically abused.
    We went to a Special Olympics Dinner right after Obama made his dumb
    joke. They had a Wii game console set up for bowling on a big screen.
    They are not throw away children, they are amazing. We pray for a cure for
    autism, but also thank God for the joy and challenge they bring.
    I am happy to flag abusive posts. WWJD?

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Pepper, I see that your limited intellect stymies your understanding of sarcasm as well.

    But at least we know who one of the rabid flaggers is.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    Gibbons, I greatly respect the fact that you realize that some are here for dialogue and civil discourse. Open opinion sharing without prejudicial blocking of all comments simply because they don't fit within a specific dogma is a reasonable expectation. And being free from paranoid accusations.

    On my better days I view the good parts of Christianity as a philosophical system for living as a better human being and in my more cynical moments as a primitive superstition.

    My Fundamental Xians does refer to the Christians that take the Bible as the literal inerrant, infallible Word of God and those that follow the Word completely - I think that group is small indeed. For example I don't think that there can be a Christian Gay - that is a paradox. The two are incompatible. To be a Full Gospel Christian simply requires one be opposed to the Gay lifestyle. There are many other example of compromises that people take but still declare themselves Christians.

    My Nominal Xians refers to what are sometimes call Cafeteria Christians, those that pick and chose from the values that happen to fit their situation. You either follow the Ten Commandments or you aren't really a Christian. Lutherans, Unitarians, Episcopalians are all other side of the TRUE Christians because they've chosen to compromise on the Word. While surveys say that 85% of Americans refer to themselves a Christians, I see it as more like about 10% as Full Christians, True Believers - and it's that wishy-washy, middle ground that I say is most likely to fall to the NONE side far more easily than they will be to follow the more rigid path. Course of least resistance.

    Thanks for the respect and civility, Gibbons

    U4

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:14 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "Certainly they are all suffering from the mental disorders of sever delusions and disconnections from reality. Maybe that's an indicator of weak genetic material over that segment of population. We know attainment of higher education decreased the chance of fundamental Xian beliefs. Perhaps it's a genetic flaw they we could breed out of the population. What do you think?"

    I'll respond as soon as I'm done rolling on the floor laughing!!!




    There...that's better. Now to your statement. One of the advocates I work closely with works with the Autism Society. So...ummmm...no. I can tell you that autism strikes people no matter what they believe or what their family is like. Now, we have a very high rate of autism here in our county. We also have a superfund site on the river where many swim and what feeds into the ground water. The rate is very high around the river in several counties.



    http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_whatcauses

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:05 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    The position of "Pope" is not God ordained. Nowhere in the Scriptures is it mentioned. Peter wasn't a pope. The position of "pope" came about centuries after Peter died. What the catholics did at the time was create the position of "pope" and then say "Oh, yeah. By the way, Peter was a pope too." LOL.
    It doesn't take a genius to see through that lie.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Gibbons, I greatly respect the fact that you realize that some are here for dialogue and civil discourse. Open opinion sharing without prejudicial blocking of all comments simply because they don't fit within a specific dogma is a reasonable expectation. And being free from paranoid accusations. On my better days I view the good parts of Christianity as a philosophical system for living as a better human being and in my more cynical moments as a primitive superstition. My Fundamental Xians does refer to the Christians that take the Bible as the literal inerrant, infallible Word of God and those that follow the Word completely - I think that group is small indeed. For example I don't think that there can be a Christian Gay - that is a paradox. The two are incompatible. To be a Full Gospel Christian simply requires one be opposed to the Gay lifestyle. There are many other example of compromises that people take but still declare themselves Christians. My Nominal Xians refers to what are sometimes call Cafeteria Christians, those that pick and chose from the values that happen to fit their situation. You either follow the Ten Commandments or you aren't really a Christian. Lutherans, Unitarians, Episcopalians are all other side of the TRUE Christians because they've chosen to compromise on the Word. While surveys say that 85% of Americans refer to themselves a Christians, I see it as more like about 10% as Full Christians, True Believers - and it's that wishy-washy, middle ground that I say is most likely to fall to the NONE side far more easily than they will be to follow the more rigid path. Course of least resistance. That's for the respect and civility, Gibbons U4 hide

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:19 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 0

    Cheisa,

    It is interesting how you attribute titles and authority to Peter that the Scriptures do not give him . . . The office of a supreme bishop is unbiblical; therefore anyone who places himself in this office is a usurper of Christ’s authority. The Holy Spirit is Christ’s true representative on earth (See John 14 & 16).

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:07 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 4

    u4eeeahhh said,

    "If you think it will take 20 years for NONES to be 25% of the population you are seriously delusional. I say in 2 decades it will be much like Europe, 2/3 NONES and Xians dying out as citizens age."

    I agree with this forecast, in that the number of non-believers will be much higher than most of us might think.

    "Atheists are a small percentage, just like Fundamental Xians. They both represent the extremes who actually are concerned with philosophy and superstitions."

    I agree with this statement except the part "philosophy and superstitions". As true students of God, the Bible and history are certain, Christianity is not based on philosophy and superstitions (but we all know that some people are highly self-motivated not to accept the Bible as the truth). But this error in judgment doesn't take away from u4eeeahhh's other opinions.

    When u4eeeahhh talks about "Fundamental Xians", I believe he's referring to Christians who believe the Bible is the very Word of God, and follow it in their daily lives. I believe, while the number of those who profess to be Christians is quite high, the number of those who are truly following Jesus daily is much less.

    "Today the middle ground is dominated by nominal Xians because it's the easy socially safe thing to proclaim now but as NONES become more accepted these folks will shift rapidly."

    Here, I believe u4eeeahhh is referring to those people who attend church almost every week, but their love and devotion to God is weak or very weak.
    The faithfully-inclined members of the ECLA, for example, who haven't yet quit and are waiting to be told what to do, could be categorized as being 'weak'. A strong person in faith would have quit immediately after the vote.
    The ECLA activists (card-carrying members of the RFHA) on committees who are weekly trying to convince people not to quit could be categorized as being 'very weak' spiritually and faithfully, or dead.

    The world is incrementally falling into the same level of depravity that existed in the time of Noah and the time of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's going to get a whole lot worse, before we are rescued from Satan's children.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You either believe that the Bible IS God's Word or the Bible simply contains God's Word.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:06 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 7

    On flagging Christians on a Christian website -

    THIS IS a Christian website, for Christians and others to discuss events relating to Christianity and religious affairs. We are against homosexual sex acts, but we think they are entitled to talk freely without disruption on (homosexual) websites set up for that purpose. THAT is freedom of speech.

    Similarly, we believe that homosexuals should not come to a Christian website and flag any Christians for any reason.

    I would never go to a homosexual website and I don't even know of any. But if I did, I wouldn't join it, give myself an offensive name, and then start flagging the homosexuals for saying things that a normal person would expect homosexuals to say to a Christian with the stupidity to come to a homosexual site to attack and disrupt them.

    Homosexuals shouldn't come to a Christian website to attack and disrupt Christians trying to exercise their freedom of speech.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Freedom of speech is one of the most important things we have.

    Flagged as inappropriate means inappropriate for a Christian website, not inappropriate for any website and not disagreeable to you.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:05 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 4

    Just checked back on and see that many of my posts have been flagged. I guess garageguy and Homo85 are having an orgy.

    RevShnorrRocks said,

    "To all flagger(s):

    I've been assuming that all here post in good faith. Assuming good faith means that absent any communication of what was found inappropriate, I'm required to assume someone accidentally flagged me.

    If you don't wish to point out specific instances of inappropriateness it would be most helpful if you would simply repost my comment as a quote from me, with the specific instances of whatever you find inappropriate edited out.

    If you find a post inappropriate but don't want to post a response please consider ignoring the post rather than flagging it. This would keep it from popping up as the very first comment that people see and there wouldn't be a proliferation of "Flagged as inappropriate" messages to draw even more attention to the post. Finally it wouldn't keep the topic on the "most comments" list."

    u4eeeahhh said,

    "I have never seen a post by anyone here crude enough to complain about and if controversy is offensive then you need to drop the computer, turn on the 700 Club and tune out discussions like these."

    To the foolish flaggers,

    >From what I've seen over the past few weeks here, if you flag one post because you disagree with it, all of your posts will probably get flagged - forever.

    Never flag and we'll get to read all the ridiculous things everybody says (if you disagree) or all the great pearls of wisdom (if you agree) - and no matter what side you're on, you'll get to read your favorite posters' comments without having to click on "show".

    1) Stop flagging and: we'll all get to read everyone's posts, good or bad.

    2) Keep flagging and: all your posts will likely be flagged, and you'll have to click on 'show' to see your friends' posts.

    It's your choice. If you've been here long enough to see what happens to people who frequently flag, you'll pick #1 and never flag.
    If you're either new or just plain stupid (you know one of those people with one malfunctioning hemisphere), you'll pick #2.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Flagged as inappropriate means inappropriate for a Christian website, not inappropriate for any website and not disagreeable to you.
    If you don't like it, move on.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:59 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 0

    The seven churches in the book of Revelation each receive a message, but not one mention of a man called:

    Pope
    Patriarch of the West
    Primate of Italy
    Metropolitan of the Province of Rome
    Sovereign Pontiff
    Our Holy Father
    Your Holiness
    Most Blessed Father
    Servant of the Servants of God
    Bishop of Rome
    Vicar of Jesus Christ
    Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
    Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
    Patriarch of the West
    Primate of Italy

    The silence towards such a lofty position (that holds crown and throne on earth) speaks volumes. Will you listen?

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 8

    No, you won't find Supreme Pontiff in the Bible, but that and a dollar will get you on the bus. It doesn't matter any more than the fact that Lutheran doesn't appear in the Bible. It's a descriptive term, a title. Don't get your knickers in a bunch over it. Theologically and practically, it's irrelevant whether they call the Pope, Pope, Bishop of ROme, Peter the 257th, Grand Puba or Twinkie. The authority Peter received from Christ to bind and loose remains the same with or without a title and whether or not that title appears in the NT which came well after the founding of the Church. It is that power to bind and loose that gives the office and the Church it's authority.

    And Man-made is not a dirty word. Think of all the man made titles around us ; Christian, evangelical, fundamentalist and all the words in Scripture that were coined by men. That argument's a non-starter., really.

    And we're not talking philosophy, but history as recorded in the NT where Christ founded His Church and chose an Apostle to lead it after He was gone.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    Cheisa,

    On the contrary, the testimony of Scripture does not recognize Peter as the supreme pontiff as you suggest and all the philosophical arguments will not change this fact; the office of a supreme bishop is a tradition of men and nothing more.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 9

    It doesn't matter how the Apostles addressed each other. When Christ changed Simon's name to Peter, the other Apostles were present, but He chose Peter. That does not make Peter a godhead or someone tobe worshipped, only the overseer of CHrist's earthly Church. You seem t be confused on that point.

    And forget titles. They are simply that, nothing more. They don't require biblical documentation and they aren't needed to validate Peter's authority, or that of his sucessors. That Christ's place and He changed Simon's name to Rock for a reason which is plain from any reading of the verses not corrupted by poor personla interpretation.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 9

    Nothing you quoted disputes the notion of Peter being named to head the earthly Church. No one disputes Christ's place or promotes Peter as a replacement for Christ, simply that Jesus gave Peter the authority, the keys to the kingdom.

    And there is nothing about accepting Peter's primacy that goes against Scripture, rather, it is the fulfillment of Christ's vocation for Peter.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:15 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    Cheisa,

    Consider the testimony of Scripture:

    “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:10-12).


    And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve” (Luke 22:24-26).

    “And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends. And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:24-26).

    Peter in both of his epistles describes himself as “an” apostle not “the” apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1) . . . He calls himself “a” servant not “the” servant - “an” apostle of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1). In his epistles Peter calls believers to place their faith in Jesus Christ who he calls the “head of the corner” (1 Peter 2:7, 8) and in verse 25 he calls Jesus the “Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.” In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter calls himself as “an” elder not “the” elder and in verse 3, 4 he explicitly states that the elders should not “lord” over God’s heritage and again in verse 4 he refers to Christ as the “chief shepherd.”

    Sorry, there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that Peter was above the other apostles; the apostles did not recognize or address Peter as head of the church; and there is no scriptural evidence for the titles of supreme pontiff, vicar of Christ, and head of the apostles . . .

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 8

    Online,

    Why would anybody assume that belonging to a denomination excludes one from knowing Christ and gaining salvation? Why would Christ bother to found a Church if that was the case? Because it isn't. Christ founded the Church to teach all nations and it is to that mission that the Catholic Church has been dedicated for 2000 years.

    And, actually, in the befinning there was only the Church. There were no denominations until the reformation.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 8

    The Way is a reference to Christ, not a church. "I am the way..."
    This is just another example of why Christ gave authority to the Church to correctly interpret the Word. Bad interpretation

    And please explain Catholic Fathers of the Church who wrote in the first century and early second, like Polycarp and Ignatius, who called the Church "catholic." Explain the existence of the Church's lineage of Popes from Peter to Linus to Clement - all in the first century. Explain why the Roman Empire martyred every Pope for the first 200 years of the Church's existence. They knew who the head of these Christians was.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:29 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Atheists are a small percentage, just like Fundamental Xians. They both represent the extremes who actually are concerned with philosophy and superstitions. Today the middle ground is dominated by nominal Xians because it's the easy socially safe thing to proclaim now but as NONES become more accepted these folks will shift rapidly. There will always be Xians and Wiccans but the numbers will be small and without significance or revelance." I would definitly recommend that you research your posting given that 2 Billion Christians don't make anything small, you repeaded postings just show how uneducated you actually are. Good luck to you though... hide

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Slacker your conspiracy theory could only come from a Xian as they will believe anything. " Well, its only a theory when it can't be proven (like evolution), I can show you several instances where you and your cohorts flagged their own posts. Btw, what does Xian mean and why do you use it to put other people down??? hide

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:55 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

    So glad I had a few moments to check CP this morning, the demise of Xian culture is my favorite topic!

    Look across the Atlantic Ocean for the shape of things to come. Secular fundamentalism is dominate in Europe where attitudes toward religion are in bold contrast to those in the United States. 59 percent of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives, only 11% of the French, 21% of Germans, and 33% of Britons do, according to the Pew Research Center.

    If you think it will take 20 years for NONES to be 25% of the population you are seriously delusional. I say in 2 decades it will be much like Europe, 2/3 NONES and Xians dying out as citizens age.

    Atheists are a small percentage, just like Fundamental Xians. They both represent the extremes who actually are concerned with philosophy and superstitions. Today the middle ground is dominated by nominal Xians because it's the easy socially safe thing to proclaim now but as NONES become more accepted these folks will shift rapidly.

    There will always be Xians and Wiccans but the numbers will be small and without significance or revelance.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:47 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

    Slacker your conspiracy theory could only come from a Xian as they will believe anything.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:52 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    There was a vibrant Celtic Church in Ireland prior to the coming of Roman Catholicism. India still has a group that traces itself back to the Apostle Thomas.

  • Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:20 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Taking off from my earlier comments, I wanted to make a note that last night at our Bible study we went through the book of Ruth.

    It was interesting how we touched on salvation, discipleship (perseverence, compassion, etc.) and apologetics in several areas including history (Ruth as history rather than myth and Ruth as part of the lineage of Jesus) as well as areas of sociology and human dignity:

    1. women's suffrage - India burned or buried their widows ALIVE until William Carey and William Wilberforce put an end to it. Jewish custom mandated special care, Ruth was no different.
    2. Jewish social initiatives - leaving produce for the poor to come and reap. Note, the best form of social action includes the dignity of work.
    3. The issue of suffering also came up. The fact that even in the midst of miracles from God, He does not immediately offer paradise, there is still pain. This world is not heaven.

    There was more that I forgot.

    All in less than one hour!!!

  • Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:19 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 4

    RevShnorrRocks said,

    "Kudos on the mixture of special effects in the word "KNOW", which is both capitalized and quoted. Very effective!"

    It's an option. You have to sign up for it.

    "I'm curious though, because I can't think of real world examples. How could science possibly help people know the truth of Christianity?"

    Christian Science?

    Slacker said,

    "More then likely it is you that is doing the flagging, just like HMan, GGuy and the rest are flagging there own post so that they think someone will have sympathy for them."

    Shame on those homos.

    TGF
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most loving thing you can do for your family is to pull them out of the public school system and keep them far away from apostate churches.

  • Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:40 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 0

    Cheisa asked for proof of a church previous to the catholic church...

    In Acts 9, the first church is mentioned as "The Way"

    1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest
    2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to THE WAY, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
    3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
    5 "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

    6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." ............................

    The catholic church did not come into existence until 400 years after the resurrection. This is documented proof. the first believers were JEWISH!!! Gentiles did not begin to come into the faith for several years after the resurrection! When they did come in, they worshiped in the same manner as the Jewish believers, not Rome.

    Catholic dogma would have us believe all sorts of things that are not Scriptural. Instead of taking catholic dogma to heart as God's honest truth, go to the Holy Bible! Ask GOD! He is just and faithful to answer all your questions, and unlike carnal men, He will not lead you astray.

  • Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:20 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Thank you for that clarification Cheisa. I knew that you were not contesting my points, but you did however use them to suite your own personal purposes. My hope was simply to endulge in some meaningful dialogue on the particular article that is at hand.

    I've seen enough Roman Catholic proselytizing here on CP to be able to recognize it as spam. The Roman Catholic Church is not the issue of relevance. If anything it is suffering from more church closings than any other. As a matter of fact, the Assemblies of God has bought numerous Catholic churches in Chicago. When is the last time a Catholic has dared enter Cabrini Green or what was formerly known as the Robert Taylor Projects? How many Catholics that have been "Christened" have no more of a profession of faith than the typical "none"?

  • Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:02 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    believer said, "That's certainly not the work of any denomination, but rather God's Holy Spirit . . . "

    Amen; many will be disappointed on the day of judgement for placing their faith in a denomination instead of Christ Jesus alone.

  • Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:52 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Slacker that is the dumbest comment I have ever heard - I did flag that previous post myself to see if it worked or would just delete it. " I rest my case... hide

  • Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:51 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "Slacker that is the dumbest comment I have ever heard " I wouldn't have said that considering some of the comments that you have made in the past. But regardless, you and all the rest that are clinging to what ever anger you have have a tendency to post "wow this post was flagged" Which leads me to believe you post that and then flag your own comment. I have seen several of your comments on other articles like that, which leads me to believe you are the only one flagging your post. I suggest you prove me wrong before you call me names... hide

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links