When we see documentaries about the North American people we get a picture that they are 'very religious'.
Christianity, which was once shared by a majority of Americans, has
seen a gradual decline as fewer people hold to the core tenets of the
faith.
The latest research by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University continues the survey series American Worldview Inventory 2021 in examining biblical and competing worldviews of American adults.
According
to the most recent release from the study, there has been a sharp
decline in the status of Christianity across the nation in the past
several decades. In 1980, more than 90 percent of Americans claimed to
be Christian. That percentage dropped to 80 percent by 1990, in which
the proportion lasted until after the turn of the millennium. By 2010,
only three in four adults claimed to be Christians, with a further
decline today as just under two out of three make the same claim.
In the previous century confidence in religion was still important. About two-thirds of American adults had high confidence in religion
in the 1970s. By the 1980s, however, that confidence was waning, and
Christianity’s influence was declining. At the start of the
millennium, 56 percent of adults had confidence in religion. That number
continued to decline, and now, barely four in ten adults hold a high
degree of confidence in religion.
No wonder, you could say, when we look at how ministers used their institutions to gain money and trick people into their 'business'. Small personal family churches were taken over by mega churches where one got lost in the group and where there was not a special bond between teh believers.
A great problem is also that the majority of those churches are Trinitarian churches, where they worship Jesus as their god. Though people came to see the weakness of that person and the contradictions they can find in Scriptures, having a Jesus who can not do a lot of things and does not know a lot of things, whilst the Bible tells us God can do everything and knows everything.
The Bible is also increasingly rejected as a trustworthy and relevant document of life principles. Not many people want to know about the values and ethics presented in the Holy Scriptures.
In 1991, 86 percent of people believed in the existence of God as the
all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe who still rules the
world today. Today, that percentage has dropped to 46 percent.
In a lot of the American churches there was not much time spend on the Word of God. Ministers only took some verses, often out of context, to bring a long sermon, often with a lot of shouting and crying about damnation and danger to burn into hell. Often people could not find a relation between the words of the pastor and the words written in the Bible. That undermined the relevance of the Holy Scriptures in the daily life.
Regarding the belief that the Bible is the accurate and reliable Word of
God, the decline shifted from 70 percent in 1991 to 41 percent in 2021.
On the topic of salvation, 36 percent of adults believed in salvation
through confession of sin and accepting Jesus as Saviour in 1991. Today,
that amount is 30 percent. The survey also noted that this measured as
high as 45 percent and was 39 percent in 2011.
The percentage of Americans possessing a biblical worldview also significantly decline (12 percent in 1995; 6 percent in 2021).
Violence in the name of Islam has caused widespread disillusionment
with the regime and has led many Iranians to question their beliefs.
Multiple reports indicate that even children of political and spiritual
leaders are leaving Islam for Christianity.
Already more than 20 years Christadelphians provide literature in Farsi and make huge efforts to communicate and unite with those who either felt not at home with their original religion or with their nation. Lots of those who fled the war zones and found a safe haven in Europe also found something interesting in the faith of many Europeans. Overhere there are not only the housechurches but in Great-Britain Christadelphian halls are open to bring the Farsi speaking people together.
Because Farsi-speaking
services in Iran are not allowed, most converts gather in informal house-church
meetings or receive information on Christianity via media, such as
satellite TV and websites. The illegal house-church movement — including
thousands of Christians — continues to grow in size and impact as God
works through transformed lives.
“If we remain faithful to our calling, our conviction is that it is possible to see the nation transformed within our lifetime,”
one
house church leader shared.
“Because Iran is a strategic gateway
nation, the growing church in Iran will impact Muslim nations across the
Islamic world.”
And like the church of Acts shows us, the
persecution that believers suffered as a group of committed
disciples — inspired and ignited by the Holy Spirit — became a catalyst for
the multiplication of believers and churches. When persecution came,
they didn’t scatter but remained in the city where it was most strategic
and most dangerous. They were arrested, shamed and beaten for their
message. Still, they stayed to lay the foundations for an earth-shaking
movement.
So it is in Iran. When the Iranian revolution of 1979
established a hardline Islamic regime, the next two decades ushered in a
wave of persecution that continues today. All missionaries were kicked
out, evangelism was outlawed, Bibles in the Persian or Farsi language
were banned, and several pastors were killed. Many feared the
small, fledgling Iranian church wouldn’t survive. Instead, the church,
fueled by the devotion and passion of disciples, has multiplied
exponentially. Iranians have become the Muslim people most open to the gospel in the Middle East.
religions in Europe, map en. See File:Europe religion map.png for details. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In this world where different groups misuse their god/God and religion to enlarge their power many christians allow them selves pulled in a spiral of violence, not noticing they are used by their politicians to get their country in a severe political ban.
there are also groups which claim to focus on saving the lives of Christians whom are
suffering from what they call " the ‘Blasphemy Laws’", aiding relatives of martyred
families, women and children who are victims of rape. Such actions of help for the suppressed and persecuted Christians is something which we would applaud if there would not be an other agenda behind it.
There are Christians who want to do believe those living in West Europe that they are in danger of religious people who are going to steal their
property and stir up violence against the Christians population. they also want to give the impression to the European population that those who want to conquer Europe are going to abduct women, rape them and force marriages as well as limiting how they may dress and appear in public.
Last week Marine Le Pen declared war against Christianity, saying that she
will utterly ban all Christian crosses, symbols and clothing from public
life, even going to so far as to say that she will abolish any
Christian imagery from any all public schools. This would be an utter
ban on Christianity, since the Faith, by its very nature, is suppose to
be incarnational and public.
The French political leader Francois-Xavier Peron, has declared that
France is about to enter into a devastating war against Islam, and its
going to be extremely violent.
He says
‘France Is About To Enter A Holy War Against
Islam, Its Going To Be Extremely Bloody And Violent, Embrace
Christianity As The True Faith And Never Accept The Religion Of Satan’
His solution to prepare?
Embrace the
Christian Faith and never accept the antichrist masonic religion.
You may find an interview with Mr. Peron by Walid Shoebat, who used to be a radicalised Muslim willing to die for the cause of Jihad until he converted, in 1994, to what he calls Christianity, but would be more to Christendom, about this coming war, and why the Christian
Faith must be the religion of the world.
At Islam is Nazism with a God I gave an answer to the question on what I thought of her concern for freedom of speech.
A video is presented on that site and like on may sites we can find several remarks and find lots of sayings of which we can agree with or not. On the internet is a lot to find by which we can or do not want to interact with people face to face. In most instances people get to see and react to texts of people we don’t see and in most cases even don’t know them.
The danger of such encounters is that such visits to different websites as well as message boards may give the visitor not the feeling they really are talking with other human beings who have their feelings like we do have ours.
N.S. Palmer who has degrees in mathematics, economics, philosophy, and
biology and is currently affiliated with Hebrew College, blogs for The Jerusalem Post and The Jewish Journal as well as his own blog where he writes
the people we encounter on the Internet seem less real to us than those
we meet in person. As a result, we tend to take them less seriously as
human beings. We are less inclined to worry about hurting their feelings
or treating them unjustly. Quite realistically, we are also less likely
to worry about arguments leading to physical confrontation or
retribution.
Perhaps it is that knowledge of not having to face that person and of being sure that we shall not encounter that person in real life, that gives for some the permission to do impermissible acts.
Often it is that anonymity which lets forget many that they should be talking decently and act politely to the other on the other end of the line.
It is like the professor says, that we
We are sitting in our homes where
nobody can see us. We are less inclined to feel shame if we do something
hurtful.{Why Are People So Mean on the Internet?}
It is that non-seen other, which makes so many chatters or internet users, to forget all decency and respect for the other.
Occasional anger and frustration make take on appropriate forms. Bottled up rage many let their steam go off when they get on the computer.
When we had the MSN Groups it started already to go the wrong way, people forgetting any decency, norm and values. Today it did not change for the better. The opposite, it became even worse, and many seem to take certain words or language for normal.
We seem to find more and more people who resort to insults, name-calling, and other kinds of online
vitriol. In a way they sometimes go so far we feel pity with them because they can not control their feelings nor their anger, which shows us how frustrated they are. Luckily we know they are either venting anger that has nothing to do with us, or
they are deliberately trying to goad us into a screaming match.
When we look at what is said on the internet, and see how many lies are told or how many are raging about, without any blush on the cheeks, we could wonder how much we should allow and how far Free speech may go.
Brooke Godlstein looks at those people who shout they are Hamas.
Their actions may have us wonder how far Free Speech goes. Can we allow
negation of the Holocaust? Can we allow people to cry for hatred against
one or another nation or race? the same could be asked about the
allowance of money entering a coutnry for funding of certain
organisations, be it right wing (Nazi, extreme Jewish/Christian or
Muslim fundamentalism) or extreme left wing (extreme Marxism or
Communism).
How far wants one to go to allow free speech when it is known that
those speakers are funded by terrorist organisations and also steer to
terrorist acts?
I think when a organisation wants to dominate and not allow an other
to have the right to speak it should be counter acted. They should be
able to have their say but others should have the right to react to them
as well. But here the State or Government has a duty to fulfil to have
everything under control and to watch those who want to dominate others
and could endanger our society. As soon as the secret intelligence
encounters dangerous elements they should make them public and show all
in the nation who those ‘preachers’ or ‘speakers’ are and what they do
plus what the danger of them for the nation is.
Pamella Geller is right to say we need to talk about this. Everything
should be considered and spoken off. It would be wrong to allow only
one party a voice and to censure an other.
A State have to assure all its citizens that they all have the right to
look at something, to study something, but also to criticise something.
As such Judaism, Christianity but also Islam should be able to judged
and criticised by the citizens of the nation, being them atheists, Jews,
Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists or from other religions. all
sorts of religions and nor religious group should be able to be put
under the magnifying glasses.
Though we do have to be careful not to call all religious people or
non-religious people savages. At the moment there is a tendency to
declare all religions awful and the cause of evil. In Europe, and
probably also in many parts of America, many think religion is the cause
of evil, and everything has to be done to stop religious awareness. In
North America the many Christians would cry high from their tower, but
by their heavy actions against other religions they could cause the same
reactions as we now have to undergo in Europe.
The interviewer of Geller shows she understood the Quran and the
meaning of Jihad = struggle. Geller her perspective of that Jihad or her
view of holy war is not the view of the bible nor the quaran wich both
speak about the holy war which has already gone on for ages (spoken of
in the Torah, Prophets, Hebrew Writings, Greek Writings, Quranic
verses).
Geller telling that christians would not behead others in the name of
Christ does not seem to know her history nor the present Asian
situation where still such things happen today. Even in the States of
America we can find people like the Westboro Baptist Church who shout
hate and hurt other people a lot. In the States there have been also
Christians who said they were against killing the unborn but did not
mind killing doctors who worked at abortion clinics. That are also
Christians who bring damage to others in the name of their religion. The
same we can find fundamentalist Jews who kill others, so called in the
name of their religion. Look at what happens in Israel and how certain
fundamentalists take in the land of others and protect their settlements
with violence.
But please do not forget that politician violence and non-religious
related violence is still the most common violence. The majority of
terrorist acts have nothing to do with religion. The majority of
believers in the different religions, pagan or not pagan, preach for
self-development in a peaceful atmosphere.
We do not have to abridge or stop our free speech for not offending
any body, be it savages or even civilised human beings who think
differently. When not having the same idea it will always be possible to
have a conflict of ideas and can there be the possibility to offend
some one. That is part of the consequences of free speech, we have to
endure or to allow.
When Geller talks about savages and savagery would she consider the
native American as savages, like her ancestors did or would she
recognise that many Europeans who came to conquer the country of those
natives behaved as savages? Did she ever thought of the fact that
certain Muslims may consider those white people who live there in the
North American halfround, who fornicate and have no good morals, could
also be considered savages today by other nations or peoples?
The indigenous people of America had also their own civilised rules
of conduct and way of life, which came disturbed by the colonial
intruders. the same for the white Europeans who conquered spaces in the
Southern halfround of this globe. In the name of Christ they also
oppressed many peoples and pushed their own believes and faith into
their throat. Many so called Christians even did not mind to take people
captive and rape and sell them, not even interested if they would die
in bad circumstances or not.
Perhaps it would not be bad to reflect on the similarity of the early
crusades and collonialisation with the present crusade of certain
Muslims or Arabic peoples.
It is true that we have a problem today which many try to avoid or to
go out of the way, thinking it would go away by not talking about it.
Not talking about it is wrong. We just should do everything to have it
possible to talk about those issues and to have clear voices showing all
the issues and how certain people could be a danger for the community.
Though each person who wants to bring something in debate and wants
to talk against something, like being against a book or movie, should
have knowledge of that book or move. Not like Geller not having seen the
trailer nor the movie. And a trailer can not even say it all. When one
wants to be against something the person has to know what he or she is
against, and as such should have had contact with it, read or seen it.
today we do find too many christians who are against the Quran because
they think certain things are standing in that book, because they only
heard the false preachers misusing that book and twisting verses. The
same about several Christians who do not know their own Scriptures,
often never having read the full Bible, from A to Z, but in the ban of
false teachers who only present verses taken out of context and looked
at from human doctrine.
the interviewer has good reason to say that when Geller wants to take
on this issue we would expect to have her taken interest in that issue
and having studied it. She telling it does not mater and she did not
need to know … proofs she only wants to take her own idea and wants
others to go for her restricted ideas only, not needing to have the real
truth of what is all behind it or how it really is and who is really
spoken about.
She is right to say we do not have to like what is said, because that
is freedom of speech, but than she too should allow others the same
right to have that freedom, to talk like she does about things they seem
not to know so well. It is for others then to come in to the circle of
debate and show both parties that they might have it at the wrong end of
the stick.
Personally I thing, and certainly for politicians, those who have a
higher position in society or have a special role in a community,
should take up their responsibility and to look at things in a
honourable and humble way, trying to stay correct to the matter, having
looked at it seriously, in honour and conscience. It is the task of a
politician to know the subject, to have studied it before speaking about
it. She has to take care that she or he is honest to both parties
involved and try to enlighten all, with showing what can be known and
trying to uncover what is hidden for the public.
Geller considers herself as the messenger, but she forgets or does not
want to see she herself is excluding the freedom of speech for those
who do not agree with her or have an other view. She also seems not
willing to see that the media have an important role to play in show
both sides of the medal. The media also has to bring the voices of all
parties involved. That is also part of the freedom of speech, and giving
the public the right to come to their own conclusions, without imposing
their own views (hopefully – though all media stations are naturally
influenced in a certain way or have a certain starting view).
Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.
A simplified chart of historical developments of major groups within Christianity. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
From April 15 to 17 the 17th annual White Privilege Conference was held in Philadelphia.
Activist and author Paul Kivel identified three particularly severe problems in the modern world that are caused or worsened by Christianity.
I could agree with his idea about certain people storming for their faith, bringing crusades, like we can see the crusades of the Muslim brothers of today. Though I would not call it Christianity's effort to spread Western ideas and influence but love to ask people to see the big difference between Christianity and Christendom, the first one preaching world peace and equality for all people, leaving everybody to choose for their own God or gods, whilst certain people in Christendom thinking all should be part of their religion and belief in their threeheaded god.
Paul Kivel lecturing in front of his homemade posters explaining Christian hegemony [Blake Neff] On one poster, he showed “Christian hegemony” at the center of a web
that included ideas like “racism,” “sexism,” and “ableism.”
Perhaps Kivel had in mind how certain evangelicals tried to bring their faith to the African communities and how Christian groups or Christian nations went to war in the East.
I would agree with the economical aspect brining people at war, but that has nothing to do with Christianity. Most wars are a matter of power and of getting more material wealth, not spiritual wealth.
As third problem was mentioned that
under Christianity mankind has dominion over the Earth, rather than
requiring that humans treat the Earth itself as 'sacred.'"
Once again here could be better spoken of Christendom. In Christianity all teaching is directed to respect for the Work of the Divine Creator and as such every creature has to be respected and man has to treat nature as good has he can. In Christianity each lover of God should understand that we as human beings are only here on acceptance and have the world in loan. It does not belong to any one person in particular, except God.
It is by human's wrong doing that we are now facing the problem of "climate change" and not because of those believing in Jehovah God and in Jesus Christ, the son of God.
It is not because it is said in the Bible that man has been given dominion over all other living things, that it would sanction man's abuse of the environment or other
creatures.
(Genesis
1:28; Matthew 25:14-30; Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-7).
Kivel argued also that
Christianity orients us to distinguish between good and evil, which forces us to
adopt a "with us or against us" mentality. "There's nothing inherently
good or bad about the weather or about people,"
he insisted.
Good versus bad does not mean with us or against us, and such mentality has not to be provoked by being a Christian. Kivel makes an irrational leap that to distinguish between good and evil
leads to condemnation of various things as worthy of destruction.There are Christians, who are trinitarians, and cannot cope with people who have an other faith than they, but more often it are non-religious people from certain political groups, who have much more difficulties with believers in God and who are most intolerant toward people and ideas of other religions or
secularists.
For the orderly functioning of life we need to have some order and functions. Our world is divided by different hierarchical posts.
In the world of the churches there are also several posts and in many denominations those in such positions often think they are higher than others and people have to listen to them and have to do what church dictates to them.
In Christianity we can see that at the beginning it was part of Judaism.
Jesus was a respected rabbi and considered by his followers as the sent one from God who had received the
authority from the Most High in heaven.
When Jesus was gone the apostles were given
special Holy Spirit powers to exercise authority as well. An outstanding example
was the drama with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) who told lies to
the Apostles, but Peter said, “You have not lied to men but to God”
(verse 4).
In today’s
reading of the 11th chapter of Mark we read
“as he (Jesus) was walking in the
temple, the chief priests and the scribes and elders came to him and
they said to him,
‘By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority
to do them?’” (verses 27-28).
Priest and scribes were considered as the highly placed ones having authority to dictate to the people. According to them no one was
supposed to teach unless they gave them authority. This is one reason
why John the Baptist went into the wilderness to preach. It was this
exercise of authority that saw the disciples thrown into prison when
they taught in the temple (Acts 4:1-3) although later, such was the
prestige of the Apostles, created by their miracles, that dramatic
scenes unfolded. (Acts 5:12,13,17-20), but “none of the rest dared join
them”.
History shows that as the early believers evolved into
large established churches these churches too began to exercise an
attitude of authority climaxing in the power of the Pope and the
cardinal system. In the Middle Ages, if you were not appointment by
church authorities to minister in a church, you had no authority to
preach.
Some, such as John Bunyan, were put in prison for doing so.
When we look at the gospels we can find examples where it is made clear by Jesus that his followers will have to take up tasks. He also sent them out into the world, something which is too often forgotten today.
We read at the end of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus said,
“Go into all
the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved
…” (16:15,16).
That authority is given to everyone, so we all have the
responsibility to share our faith.
Paul challenges us when he expresses
this responsibility in the bluntest terms,
“Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:16).
- based on the Today's thought “Who gave you this authority?” (February 15) by the Christadelphian
Moses Isserles (or Moshe Isserlis) (1530 - 1572) - a Rabbi and Talmudist, renowned for his fundamental work of Halakha (Jewish law), titled the Mapah (HaMapah), a component of the Shulkhan Arukh. He is also well known for Darkhei Moshe, a commentary on the Tur. Isserles is also "the ReMA" (or "the RAMA") רמ״א, the Hebrew acronym for Rabbi Moses Isserles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In Christianity we do find the same problem as in Judaism having different faith groups all claiming that they are the right Jews or right Christians.
Rabbi Eliezer Silver who visited a
displaced persons camp after the war, encountered a Jew who told him
he no longer wanted anything to do with Judaism.
He explained that there was a Jew in
the camps with a siddur that he would share only with those who were
willing to give up their daily slice of bread.
“If that’s what Judaism
is all about, I want nothing more to do with it.”
Rabbi Silver asked him
gently:
“And what did most people do?”
“They gave up their bread and
took the siddur. They starved!”
Rabbi Silver asked
“Why,” “do you look
at the one Jew who could behave so dastardly? Why not reflect on the
many more Jews who were willing to starve in exchange for a few minutes
of precious prayer?”
Rabbi Yaniv says the same to an Ashkenazi whose wife is Sephardi
Why are you looking at one
disparity in the difference of custom between Ashkenazi and Sephardi
Jews rather than the astounding number of similarities they share?
The differences are so negligible
that they just prove the rule – we are one people with one Torah. Jews
are forbidden by the Torah to eat or even own leavened products on
Passover.
We should remember that God took His People out of Egypt to make them
one nation, united by the Torah. The Jews should take this at heart and should know their common history and their common goal.
Some eat rice, some don’t, and it matters not. We are one family, the
children of Israel.
explains Yaniv.
Also the Christians living all over the earth should know that there are differences depending on where they live and what season it is. Most important is that they do not take part in pagan traditions, like the Easter bunnies a.o..
Please do read the interesting exhortation of rabbi Yaniv:
![Paul Kivel lecturing in front of his homemade posters explaining Christian hegemony [Blake Neff]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vMAC8e7H_Vh5pz8cGS1JMXgFV4iczluo5KUXSR8x2XfDPyCt02gcuuKrEBhoornbGu3dgCfprwFidBdbm_zcrrpQwslzgzcV4RV_pXAPCuZP6yz83jPXvS_ozcsVUJr0uJky0SsfjrWRMHJjIWyqI=s0-d)
