“Between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the U.S. are dying each year”

[danielpalos]

Is this good or bad?


Today, nearly four in ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated—three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among seniors (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation.


And it’s even worse in Europe where many empty churches are being converted to Muslim mosques.


At one time, churches provided a loci of social belonging as much as a religious base. Now, as many young people are losing the agenda of close, personal, face-to-face relatonships, such social gatherings no longer meet their personal goals.


What do you think?


More of this @ "Between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the U.S. are dying each year" - and that means that over 100 will die this week

no wonder it can be so difficult to find nice girls.

 

[jehanne1431]

Guys used to be really proud of their mullet hair cuts too. People move on, and tend to drop those things that serve no purpose in their lives.

The only problem is many or most "people" these days have no clue what serves a purpose in their lives and what does not.

 

[hobelim]

Noo, I am suggesting they pass a basic test for sanity at the very least.

If your beliefs trump facts, you are not mentally or emotionally fit to lead. It has nothing whatever to do with any religion or religious test.

Whats so terrible? You can always tap dance for nickels, or put together a minstrel show for fools.

Such a test could easily be manipulated to eliminate people you don't like politically from any say in how the country is run.

It's amazing how often progressive twats like you go back to the games of Jim Crow to eliminate your political opposition.

Freedom means being able to say not only 2+2=4, but 2+2=5, tyranny results from being forced to say either one.

No tyranny is being force to live in chaos perpetuated by people who can't add 1+1+1 and then blame everyone else.

Freedom is messy.

You want authoritarianism based on your view on how the world should work.

It's the same desire of every petty dictator who ever lived.

It's also the current way of the progressive left. If you can't convince people your way is better, force them to live it.

No, I'm suggesting that people should conform to the way reality actually works.

What good is putting someone in public office during peacetime or war if they really really really believe that at any moment God can ____ angels out of the sky to fix things?

How is it even possible that that will not lead to disaster?

Well, let's see --- Chamberlain tried to establish peace in our time applying diplomacy. He was smart. I'm sure he felt he did his level best. He was highly educated and quite smart. And yet it was Churchill who got Britain through the war. And it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Hitler could have gone right into England, if only he'd killed all the British solders at Dunkirk. Oh that was a miracle. And then the stupidity of Hitler to invade the USSR --- or another miracle. And then you have the Japanese attacking the US but they didn't invade Hawaii --- a big mistake or another miracle.

Look at Mrs. Clinton, a very educated, extremely smart cookie. And yet she was blindsided again and again. God is in control. If He wasn't, I can assure you history would have evolved differently.

Really? Hillary? Give me a break. Some people thought that Jesus hanging on the cross was a sign that he was condemned by God instead of a sign that the people who condemned him were evil.

 

[BULLDOG]

Guys used to be really proud of their mullet hair cuts too. People move on, and tend to drop those things that serve no purpose in their lives.

The only problem is many or most "people" these days have no clue what serves a purpose in their lives and what does not.

And you know what serves a purpose in other people's lives better than they do? That's a right wing philosophy if I ever heard one.

 

[jehanne1431]

Guys used to be really proud of their mullet hair cuts too. People move on, and tend to drop those things that serve no purpose in their lives.

The only problem is many or most "people" these days have no clue what serves a purpose in their lives and what does not.

And you know what serves a purpose in other people's lives better than they do? That's a right wing philosophy if I ever heard one.

I doubt you are a big fan of God’s, but He did bestow humanity with innate understanding of right and wrong, of natural law. Wikipedia, no fan of Christian thought, describes natural law as follows: >> Natural law is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal; it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state.. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. <<

Modern society has cast aside some natural laws as having no rightful demand on them. I see much of society once more single-minded to the basic needs for self preservation, family and neighbor --- now more driven by ego, narcissism and temporal pleasures. I also see a change in the last 30 years to the rejection of conventional morality or the need for any God. As a result society has become far more immersed in materialism, lust, power, vanity, rudeness, meanness towards those who disagree with them, cavalier rejection of historical beliefs and acts of valor. Instead they judge all of history (esp. America) in terms their 21st century “ethics” (or is it political correctness?) Because they can find flaws in historical thought or acts and find ample sins amongst Christians of today (as well as conservatives) they feel completely justified to throw out the entire philosophy or religion and rely on their own wits and feelings. They are also very selective in how they judge and who they judge, making their whole ideology a hypocritical farce, more often than not.

ps— wish I could have (but could not) shortened this pontificating answer. (apologies)

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is this good or bad?


Today, nearly four in ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated—three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among seniors (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation.


And it’s even worse in Europe where many empty churches are being converted to Muslim mosques.


At one time, churches provided a loci of social belonging as much as a religious base. Now, as many young people are losing the agenda of close, personal, face-to-face relatonships, such social gatherings no longer meet their personal goals.


What do you think?


More of this @ "Between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the U.S. are dying each year" - and that means that over 100 will die this week

The fairy tale got found out as "fake news" huh?

 

[BULLDOG]

Guys used to be really proud of their mullet hair cuts too. People move on, and tend to drop those things that serve no purpose in their lives.

The only problem is many or most "people" these days have no clue what serves a purpose in their lives and what does not.

And you know what serves a purpose in other people's lives better than they do? That's a right wing philosophy if I ever heard one.

I doubt you are a big fan of God’s, but He did bestow humanity with innate understanding of right and wrong, of natural law. Wikipedia, no fan of Christian thought, describes natural law as follows: >> Natural law is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal; it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state.. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. <<

Modern society has cast aside some natural laws as having no rightful demand on them. I see much of society once more single-minded to the basic needs for self preservation, family and neighbor --- now more driven by ego, narcissism and temporal pleasures. I also see a change in the last 30 years to the rejection of conventional morality or the need for any God. As a result society has become far more immersed in materialism, lust, power, vanity, rudeness, meanness towards those who disagree with them, cavalier rejection of historical beliefs and acts of valor. Instead they judge all of history (esp. America) in terms their 21st century “ethics” (or is it political correctness?) Because they can find flaws in historical thought or acts and find ample sins amongst Christians of today (as well as conservatives) they feel completely justified to throw out the entire philosophy or religion and rely on their own wits and feelings. They are also very selective in how they judge and who they judge, making their whole ideology a hypocritical farce, more often than not.

ps— wish I could have (but could not) shortened this pontificating answer. (apologies)

So what is your solution to what you see as a problem?

 

[Karl Rand]

However, I do believe that faith in God is what has kept me alive, when things were really bad for me.

Fair enough but don’t make the mistake of suggesting everyone needs the support of such a belief system or the promise of immortality for being a good Christian. (whatever that is)

 

[SweetSue92]

If churches stayed out of politics they might find their membership recovering. There are more than a few million who find evangelical support for Trump disturbing and hypocritical. Who the hell wants to go to church ans see a sign that voting for a democrat is sinful or supporting Trump is the "Christian" thing to do.

The "social justice" churches are all politics and no Christ, and make no mistake. My evangelical church has never mentioned Trump, not once.

 

[SweetSue92]

Some of what churches fought for and what labor unions fought for have been replaced by government regulations so a loss in membership is natural.

That's pathetic but probably true. But if true, don't let the door hit you.

The Church is Jesus Christ. That's it.

 

[Karl Rand]

Churches are turning from God so people are turning from church. Churches thought they would attract more people if they became more secular. They promoted homosexuality and celebrated same sex marriage. Now they are failing.

Why is it so many believers appear almost obsessed with homosexuality and same sex marriage? Given the last century and a half of academic biblical studies today’s church is standing on very wonky foundations in asserting same sex love is a sin.
Yet these same people are willing to cleave to a religion that worships God the father who tortured his own son on the cross (invariably illustrated and worshiped as almost naked) to redeem sins he made possible in the first place by granting humanity free will. A grant whose outcomes he would have know given his omniscience. Something doesn’t add up especially when we meditate upon this theology and the question of what attracts so many pedophiles to ministry.

 

[SweetSue92]

Cool the Rapture is the cure for global warming poverty and unemployment

Could be. If people stopped praying to an image of Jesus that isn't real, believing in a past that never existed and hoping for a future that will never come, maybe they will start dealing with reality?

More than likely they will find something else to believe in, something probably more vindictive.

Just look at modern progressives, they have placed religion with political theory.

Political theory? You mean like the so called moral majority?

Actually the current progressive left has more in common with the old 80's moral majority than they do with the true liberal left.

Belief in things like AGW has replaced religion for some people, if you don't believe it, just see how some AGW proponents react when questioned, it's like the questioner is a heretic, not a critic.

I know that's what right wing talking heads tell you, but it's not true.

Oh I would go many steps further than that, and have. Progressives are more like actual Puritans that 80s moralizers. They have mobs and everything--they run people right out of their lives for not towing the Party Line.

Pursed lipped moralizers, they are. It's funny, and sad. But I laugh, anyway. I laugh at what rebels they think they are while all but wearing Puritan robes. Dupes

 

[SweetSue92]

Churches are turning from God so people are turning from church. Churches thought they would attract more people if they became more secular. They promoted homosexuality and celebrated same sex marriage. Now they are failing.

Why is it so many believers appear almost obsessed with homosexuality and same sex marriage? Given the last century and a half of academic biblical studies today’s church is standing on very wonky foundations in asserting same sex love is a sin.
Yet these same people are willing to cleave to a religion that worships God the father who tortured his own son on the cross (invariably illustrated and worshiped as almost naked) to redeem sins he made possible in the first place by granting humanity free will. A grant whose outcomes he would have know given his omniscience. Something doesn’t add up especially when we meditate upon this theology and the question of what attracts so many pedophiles to ministry.

We are only "obsessed" with same sex marriage and homosexuality because this is the sin we are being asked to not only endorse but CELEBRATE. No one is holding "pride parades" for theft, adultery, murder, etc. No one is asking us to celebrate those sins. Again, it's not that we think homosexuality is worse than others--it's that we're expected to endorse it. That's the difference.

 

[martybegan]

What an egocentric **** you are. Sorry, but what are proposing is totalitarian, a meritocracy gone evil.

You are proposing religious (well anti-religious) tests for government positions.

It's a short walk from that to camps for them.

People like you are controlling morons, unable to understand views other than your own.

Noo, I am suggesting they pass a basic test for sanity at the very least.

If your beliefs trump facts, you are not mentally or emotionally fit to lead. It has nothing whatever to do with any religion or religious test.

Whats so terrible? You can always tap dance for nickels, or put together a minstrel show for fools.

Such a test could easily be manipulated to eliminate people you don't like politically from any say in how the country is run.

It's amazing how often progressive twats like you go back to the games of Jim Crow to eliminate your political opposition.

Freedom means being able to say not only 2+2=4, but 2+2=5, tyranny results from being forced to say either one.

No tyranny is being force to live in chaos perpetuated by people who can't add 1+1+1 and then blame everyone else.

Freedom is messy.

You want authoritarianism based on your view on how the world should work.

It's the same desire of every petty dictator who ever lived.

It's also the current way of the progressive left. If you can't convince people your way is better, force them to live it.

No, I'm suggesting that people should conform to the way reality actually works.

What good is putting someone in public office during peacetime or war if they really really really believe that at any moment God can fart angels out of the sky to fix things?

How is it even possible that that will not lead to disaster?

I thought according to progressives reality is what they make it?

Girls can be boys, boys can be girls, etc.

And again, blacklisting people based on their beliefs is fascist.

 

[hobelim]

Noo, I am suggesting they pass a basic test for sanity at the very least.

If your beliefs trump facts, you are not mentally or emotionally fit to lead. It has nothing whatever to do with any religion or religious test.

Whats so terrible? You can always tap dance for nickels, or put together a minstrel show for fools.

Such a test could easily be manipulated to eliminate people you don't like politically from any say in how the country is run.

It's amazing how often progressive twats like you go back to the games of Jim Crow to eliminate your political opposition.

Freedom means being able to say not only 2+2=4, but 2+2=5, tyranny results from being forced to say either one.

No tyranny is being force to live in chaos perpetuated by people who can't add 1+1+1 and then blame everyone else.

Freedom is messy.

You want authoritarianism based on your view on how the world should work.

It's the same desire of every petty dictator who ever lived.

It's also the current way of the progressive left. If you can't convince people your way is better, force them to live it.

No, I'm suggesting that people should conform to the way reality actually works.

What good is putting someone in public office during peacetime or war if they really really really believe that at any moment God can fart angels out of the sky to fix things?

How is it even possible that that will not lead to disaster?

I thought according to progressives reality is what they make it?

Girls can be boys, boys can be girls, etc.

And again, blacklisting people based on their beliefs is fascist.

Its not about blacklisting people based on their beliefs.

Its about banning people from positions for which they are not qualified to hold.

Its a matter of public safety, national security and world peace.

 

[martybegan]

Such a test could easily be manipulated to eliminate people you don't like politically from any say in how the country is run.

It's amazing how often progressive twats like you go back to the games of Jim Crow to eliminate your political opposition.

Freedom means being able to say not only 2+2=4, but 2+2=5, tyranny results from being forced to say either one.

No tyranny is being force to live in chaos perpetuated by people who can't add 1+1+1 and then blame everyone else.

Freedom is messy.

You want authoritarianism based on your view on how the world should work.

It's the same desire of every petty dictator who ever lived.

It's also the current way of the progressive left. If you can't convince people your way is better, force them to live it.

No, I'm suggesting that people should conform to the way reality actually works.

What good is putting someone in public office during peacetime or war if they really really really believe that at any moment God can fart angels out of the sky to fix things?

How is it even possible that that will not lead to disaster?

I thought according to progressives reality is what they make it?

Girls can be boys, boys can be girls, etc.

And again, blacklisting people based on their beliefs is fascist.

Its not about blacklisting people based on their beliefs.

Its about banning people from positions for which they are not qualified to hold.

Its a matter of public safety.

No, it's a matter of you trying to silence those who disagree with you.

The only qualifications for public office should be age and citizenship.

 

[hobelim]

No tyranny is being force to live in chaos perpetuated by people who can't add 1+1+1 and then blame everyone else.

Freedom is messy.

You want authoritarianism based on your view on how the world should work.

It's the same desire of every petty dictator who ever lived.

It's also the current way of the progressive left. If you can't convince people your way is better, force them to live it.

No, I'm suggesting that people should conform to the way reality actually works.

What good is putting someone in public office during peacetime or war if they really really really believe that at any moment God can fart angels out of the sky to fix things?

How is it even possible that that will not lead to disaster?

I thought according to progressives reality is what they make it?

Girls can be boys, boys can be girls, etc.

And again, blacklisting people based on their beliefs is fascist.

Its not about blacklisting people based on their beliefs.

Its about banning people from positions for which they are not qualified to hold.

Its a matter of public safety.

No, it's a matter of you trying to silence those who disagree with you.

The only qualifications for public office should be age and citizenship.

Nonsense. .

Would you elect a coward to lead the nation during war? Would you expect a liar to tell the truth? Would you hire a child molester to work with children? Would you put the insane in charge of the asylum? No?

Is that fascist?

 

[martybegan]

Freedom is messy.

You want authoritarianism based on your view on how the world should work.

It's the same desire of every petty dictator who ever lived.

It's also the current way of the progressive left. If you can't convince people your way is better, force them to live it.

No, I'm suggesting that people should conform to the way reality actually works.

What good is putting someone in public office during peacetime or war if they really really really believe that at any moment God can fart angels out of the sky to fix things?

How is it even possible that that will not lead to disaster?

I thought according to progressives reality is what they make it?

Girls can be boys, boys can be girls, etc.

And again, blacklisting people based on their beliefs is fascist.

Its not about blacklisting people based on their beliefs.

Its about banning people from positions for which they are not qualified to hold.

Its a matter of public safety.

No, it's a matter of you trying to silence those who disagree with you.

The only qualifications for public office should be age and citizenship.

Nonsense. .

Would you elect a coward to lead the nation during war? Would you expect a liar to tell the truth? Would you hire a child molester to work with children? Would you put the insane in charge of the asylum? No?

Is that fascist?

Washington elected an ex-con crackhead.

When you start applying arbitrary limits to who can run for office, you open the door to people being blocked for political reasons.

Of course that's what you want, you just don't have the balls to say it.

 

[Ravi]

Is this good or bad?


Today, nearly four in ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated—three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among seniors (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation.


And it’s even worse in Europe where many empty churches are being converted to Muslim mosques.


At one time, churches provided a loci of social belonging as much as a religious base. Now, as many young people are losing the agenda of close, personal, face-to-face relatonships, such social gatherings no longer meet their personal goals.


What do you think?


More of this @ "Between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the U.S. are dying each year" - and that means that over 100 will die this week

I think your link is untrue. It's a hysterical blog with links to random rants on the internet with no credible sources.

 

[Ravi]

No, I'm suggesting that people should conform to the way reality actually works.

What good is putting someone in public office during peacetime or war if they really really really believe that at any moment God can fart angels out of the sky to fix things?

How is it even possible that that will not lead to disaster?

I thought according to progressives reality is what they make it?

Girls can be boys, boys can be girls, etc.

And again, blacklisting people based on their beliefs is fascist.

Its not about blacklisting people based on their beliefs.

Its about banning people from positions for which they are not qualified to hold.

Its a matter of public safety.

No, it's a matter of you trying to silence those who disagree with you.

The only qualifications for public office should be age and citizenship.

Nonsense. .

Would you elect a coward to lead the nation during war? Would you expect a liar to tell the truth? Would you hire a child molester to work with children? Would you put the insane in charge of the asylum? No?

Is that fascist?

Washington elected an ex-con crackhead.

When you start applying arbitrary limits to who can run for office, you open the door to people being blocked for political reasons.

Of course that's what you want, you just don't have the balls to say it.

What ex con crack head are you talking about?