Americans Are Losing Their Religion -- But the Fundamentalists Have a Plan

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I just thought I would explain to you the real damage done by seculars in the world today, and by people who believe in a godless secular socialist One World Global society, replete with the trappings of a World Socialist Utopia, and the musings of Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village" to raise our children.

That you cannot see how these monsters are using religion(which you seem to hate so virulently) to push their monstrous globalism is very telling to me. But they are gutting the real religions and sanitizing them, and changing doctrine to suit their globalist agenda.

First of all, it does take a village (that is, everyone) to raise a child.

Monsters? Changing doctrine?
Monstrous Globalism?
Okay, I'm done responding to you. Again, you might take some deep breaths and give some thought to your stance.
I really, truly, don't know what to say to you.

The only thing I can imagine is that you have no care for the people all over the planet who are struggling to survive.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by nenothtu

 

That's also why I detest those brow-beating "altar calls".

What's an "altar call"?

It's where the preacher and his minions stand up at the altar and repeatedly insist that someone needs to get up there and "get saved". I've seen them stand there insisting for nearly an hour until SOMEONE came. It's like they think their own souls depend on the number of people they can dupe into it.

reply to post by wildtimes


Monied interests promote Statism, control of the State over individual rights. Wealthy elites have promoted Statism through Communism, fascism, socialism, globalism. Rockefellers funded the Bolsheviks, and the Bushes and the Harrimans and JP Morgan financed Hitler.

I just happen to find it a much more corrosive issue than that of Protestants having private sector boot camps promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that is my answer to Infinity as well.
I posted that the Communist Party in Russia persecuted Christians as part of their program of Statism and how seculars inserted their ideology in the schools as a State religion devoid of God, and promoting a godless society with no absolute moral values.
If you prefer the ideology of Communists and the godless society, than birds of a feather flock together.

But as you were....

reply to post by nenothtu


Ahh, yes. When I was in junior high (middle school), I went with a good friend to a Baptist 'revival', and they did that 'calling.'

To my memory (which may be mistaken by now - I'm old!), I was scared out of my mind, and went up there, and cried, and it was a very scary thing. Later, I didn't believe it, but wow, those folks know how to make you feel like pink slime!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

If you prefer the ideology of Communists and the godless society, than birds of a feather flock together.

But as you were....

(Woops! Just made myself a 'hypocrite' by now responding to you again!!)

I really, truly, do not know what your problem is.
I never said anything about a 'Godless Society.'

reply to post by wildtimes


No it does NOT take a village to raise a child. It takes parents. Again, you assert that the parent has failed in their duties and therefore the State must step in and do that.
The parents are the natural guardian of the child and this is also a biblical teaching. You seem to agree with the Progressive Obama that parents are not worthy of this right and therefore the State must take control. Candidate Obama made clear his idea in the Saddleback forum that parents are evil and the State is supreme.

Here is the specific statement here where Obama calls parents evil abusers of their children and "we" meaning the "State" must stop it.

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.

transcripts.cnn.com...

The above link contains the complete transcript of the interview, and I could dissect the entire thing more completely with an analysis which shows this interview to be a preview of many of his true ideas. It is in code and you have to understand the Progressive world view to see it. For instance when he talks about paying teachers, you have to realize this is code for propping up the public unions.
I think even his so-called Christian viewpoint is not based on real Christianity. (I'm stopping short of calling him a liar).
Also you might be interested to know that I am just as against the promotion of perverted religious ideologies such as Christian Socialism and the promotion of Marxism through such ideologies as Black Liberation Theology of James Cone. You know chickens coming home to roost against the imperialist America, which Obama is evidently dedicated to bringing to her knees.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Ahh, yes. When I was in junior high (middle school), I went with a good friend to a Baptist 'revival', and they did that 'calling.'

Yup, that's an "altar call", and yup, the entire intent is to make someone feel like pink slime until they get up there and let the preacher "save their souls", at which point he feels better about himself, since he "saved a soul". Never mind that it rarely ever takes permanently, or that he's taking credit for God's actions if it does.

It's a racket, I tell ya!

That occurs at some of the more entertaining churches, too, every single Sunday morning. It's not just a "revival" thing, but it IS something to be avoided.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You just don't get it, do you??
Parents can not be there all day, every day, through every hour - because they have to work (thanks to capitalism's rigors), therefore having neighbors and others who can help a child when they need it,
and who can affect the trajectory of a kid living in squalid or horrid conditions, or report on how the kid is behaving when the parent isn't around to see....are very important.

I guess you're not very well versed in Brain Development, and 'goodness of fit' between parent and child.
There are loads of parents who haven't got a clue what they're doing to their kids, but mean it with the best of intentions.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Again, you assert that the parent has failed in their duties and therefore the State must step in and do that.

Nope! Didn't assert that.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Okay, now you've expanded your post.
Obama is a good man, in my opinion.
I guess your anger is against him, and I'm not sure why. Are you doing something with your kids that you're afraid for people to know?

reply to post by nenothtu

That occurs at some of the more entertaining churches, too, every single Sunday morning. It's not just a "revival" thing, but it IS something to be avoided.

Yes. Avoided.
And it makes me sick to think of these 'Jesus Camp' kids out there preaching.......
it's just so warped, So sad.

I wish I could find the youtube vid that I first saw, showing how those kids are crying, melting down, being tormented.....
believing in what the 'leaders' are telling them that they are doomed!
Sickening.
Children are precious treasures.
They don't need to be made to feel like "Failures", or "Warriors".....
they just need to know they are loved, no matter what.

reply to post by wildtimes

You just don't get it, do you??

I get quite a lot more than you think. You assert that parents cannot be home so therefore it is up to the State to educate the children and babysit them and determine the outcome. That also means that stay at home parents cannot function in the stead of the State by home-schooling. At least that is what you seem to be meaning. Because you assert parents cannot be at home to take care of their children, and by that incapable of raising them.
But that is in today's society. I seem to recall that Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote in her book, "Little House On The Prairie" that for a time she stayed at home and her "pa" educated them.
Why is the Obama admin trying to prevent parents from homeschooling? Likely he believes like you do that parents are unable and unwilling to do the job the State asserts it has the right to do.
From what I understand, and I am still researching, the Common Core curriculum promoted by Obama is making it so that the children who get homeschooled will be unable to pass state tests and thus to graduate and get into college. It is nothing but a dirty trick.

Even were I to concede that in today's economy both parents must work and therefore the State has the responsibility to educate the children, the State still wrests whatever little control the parent would otherwise have.
But again, you assert that parents are incapable of raising their own children and the State (the Village) therefore must do it.
The tactic before Common Core was to use Values Clarification to assert the State's right to control the thinking and behavior of children over the values and mores of their parents. This is a fact. It's not ok for parents to convey religious beliefs to their children but it is ok for the State to wrap the children's minds up in such things as wondering what it would be like to commit suicide and how would they do it? That is a real Values Clarification program so don't bother trying to refute it.

Children are precious treasures.

Yes, and I would hope that you would be against the State sexualizing them at the earliest possible age by promoting sex ed for them in kindergarten with Planned Parenthood and SIECUS writing the programs. This is what Candidate Obama wants to do. And SIECUS even boasted on their website that they got federal funds from the STIMULUS.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Why is the Obama admin trying to prevent parents from homeschooling? Likely he believes like you do that parents are unable and unwilling to do the job the State asserts it has the right to do.
From what I understand, and I am still researching, the Common Core curriculum promoted by Obama is making it so that the children who get homeschooled will be unable to pass state tests and thus to graduate and get into college. It is nothing but a dirty trick.

Actually, I have no problem with 'home-schooling'. When my brilliant son couldn't cope with 'mainstream' education in the public schools, his dad and I agreed to let him drop out. He's 22 now, and doing just fine.

I even registered a home school declaration to my state! Because I cared what my son was learning, and wanted to allow him the opportunity to learn what he needs to know 'outside of public school curricula'.

When he was three years old, his favorite show was "Adult Math" on PBS.

reply to post by wildtimes


I think the thing that bothers me the most about the Jesus Camp kids is that they have not had time enough to explore and question their own beliefs - how could they possibly impart them to any one else? The answer to that, I'm afraid, is that they are just "parroting" what someone else told them, without actually thinking it through. Blind "faith" is STILL "blind", and religion by rote is a dangerous thing indeed.

Another concern of mine is the way their parents sort of shove them into it. It really does remind me of the Indian temple prostitutes, and I don't much care who that comparison pisses off.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You assert that parents cannot be home so therefore it is up to the State to educate the children and babysit them and determine the outcome. That also means that stay at home parents cannot function in the stead of the State by home-schooling. At least that is what you seem to be meaning. Because you assert parents cannot be at home to take care of their children, and by that incapable of raising them.

Nope! Actually, I think it is imperative that there be a parent at home. I made many "monetary" sacrifices to do just that. I had a family day-care thing going in my home, because I refused to 'go to work full-time' to shore up the 'family income'
I think moms should stay at home and care for their young children.

But again, you assert that parents are incapable of raising their own children and the State (the Village) therefore must do it.

No, I don't assert that.

The tactic before Common Core was to use Values Clarification to assert the State's right to control the thinking and behavior of children over the values and mores of their parents. This is a fact. It's not ok for parents to convey religious beliefs to their children but it is ok for the State to wrap the children's minds up in such things as wondering what it would be like to commit suicide and how would they do it? That is a real Values Clarification program so don't bother trying to refute it.

sigh. I really don't know why you refuse to see my point.

reply to post by wildtimes

Actually, I have no problem with 'home-schooling'. When my brilliant son couldn't cope with 'mainstream' education in the public schools, his dad and I agreed to let him drop out. He's 22 now, and doing just fine.

Ok then we agree something.

I also feel that some religious doctrines are not the true intent of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have no doubt that the Church has it's own agenda which is more for control than for spreading the true gospel.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Okay.
Cool.

reply to post by wildtimes

No. I don't want to KILL anyone - I want to shut them up, educate them, and make it criminal, like any other form of hate crime.

Let me understand this, you want it to be criminal for religious people to talk about their religion to others, to make that a crime....think about what you are saying...again more Statism from you and political correctness enforced by the State based on what you personally believe or do not believe. You want those who believe differently from you to shut up. You want to educate them because you are much smarter than they are(presumably because you believe in scientific and humanist materialism).
Is that what you meant, or something different?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Let me understand this, you want it to be criminal for religious people to talk about their religion to others, to make that a crime....think about what you are saying...again more Statism from you and political correctness enforced by the State based on what you personally believe or do not believe.

I want it to stop that people anywhere, of any religion, are pushing their beliefs on people who are vulnerable and needy.
People in need don't need to hear about 'Christ'. They need help.
There's no reason to pimp Jesus when a person is caring for another person! The action of helping speaks WAY louder than the words of the gospel.

I want it to be 'criminal' to scare people in need with 'hell-fire and brimstone', with thinking they are 'the chosen' or 'elect,' excluding others!

Here is something that the original article postulates, that people are walking away from the Protestant religion to embrace secularism.

What's happening to these vanishing Protestants? For the most part, they're not converting to any other religion, but rather are walking away from religion entirely. They're becoming " nones," as the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life puts it. It seems likely that this is the same secularizing trend being observed in Europe, as people of advanced, peaceful democracies find religion increasingly irrelevant to their daily lives.

So the article is clearly supportive of secularism over religion.

Here is something else in the article

Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, declared that "theological liberalism" is at fault for Christianity's decline

www.alternet.org...
Yes, theological LIBERALISM is the root cause of why people are losing their religion....what I said, that perverted ideas are supplanting the true gospel of Jesus Christ.