Census: Less than half of England and Wales population identifies as Christian

Get ready. I'm going to say some offensive things that I believe;

I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe there is no such thing as "trans" and is an afront to God's purposeful design for mankind. I believe bisexuality is a sin. I believe lying is a sin. As is theft. Murder. Adultery. Fornication. Rioting. Watching porn. Lusting after your neighbor's wife. Having sex with a minor. etc. And since I believe these things to be a sin I will express my belief, openly and without apology. So, given these examples, are my thoughts horrific? Have I been harmful to anyone? Has my expressed opinion caused demonstrable harm to anyone? And if not, why should I be restrained by laws, special rights, to express them?
Nope that's all fine. Ludicrous, but fine. Except for the sex with minors of course. It's ludicrous that you include that with the others, but it's your opinion and I am content for you to express it.
In some circumstances, yes, but that type of blanket statement does not reflect all laws. I have noted you tend to do this in your claims. Paint with a broad brush to strengthen your argument. Just as an observation. No disrespect meant.
Can you give me an example of a law that is not aimed to reduce harm?

And by this you mean what exactly? My religious belief to think and to do as I believe is not equal to that of an irreligious persons? Because I follow my faith I am being harmful?
You can think what you like and do what you like up to the point where you abuse, threaten or discriminate against someone , a homosexual for example, because of what you think of him. Just as you are protected against abuse, threats or discrimination for being a Christian. You may believe that a fornicator is worthy of abuse, but if you actually abuse them, you become liable. The same applies to everyone. Put away the burning martyr fragrance aftershave. It doesn't impress anyone.
 
Civilized? LOL have you seen your culture? Andrew Tate says he doesn't walk around alone at night due to all the gangs in England!
So? I'm sure you can do statistics on crime rates. Or do you just rely on quotes from a has-been internet personality?
 
Nope that's all fine. Ludicrous, but fine. Except for the sex with minors of course. It's ludicrous that you include that with the others, but it's your opinion and I am content for you to express it.
It's only ludicrous because you support doing all of those (beyond the pedophilia), as if there is nothing immoral or improper with them. That is the difference between thee and me. I believe in a moral standard. You do not.
You can think what you like and do what you like up to the point where you abuse, threaten or discriminate against someone , a homosexual for example, because of what you think of him. Just as you are protected against abuse, threats or discrimination for being a Christian. You may believe that a fornicator is worthy of abuse, but if you actually abuse them, you become liable. The same applies to everyone. Put away the burning martyr fragrance aftershave. It doesn't impress anyone.
So if I tell a homosexual he or she is not welcome around my grandchildren am I abusing either of the homosexuals? Is that discrimination to prohibit them from being around my grandchildren? Is that threatening in some way? None of those apply. And yet, I would be called a "homophobe", a "hate monger" and equal to the taliban or isis and guilty of "hate speech".

p.s. I'm no martyr. Just a man who will not compromise his faith. Obviously that offends you or you wouldn't have ended your paragraph with what you wrote.
 
You move forward, you regress or you stagnate. Those are your options.
And we're "moving forward" toward our own dissolution at top speed. It'll take a while yet, and the lies, and corruption will continue to grow fed by our media, and our politicians. I wonder what the next fake "Crisis" du jour will be???
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
So? I'm sure you can do statistics on crime rates. Or do you just rely on quotes from a has-been internet personality?
I seen how your "civilized" citizens behaved during the world cup, the only team to throw beer at people. Ya civilized!

I know the crime statistics and the gun violence. Its increasing no mater what your lying politicians say.

Has been internet personality? LMAO He is everywhere and his following is growing! He says if you can afford to live the UK, get out!lol Sounds like a nice place. NOT!!
 
The tide turned sometime ago. Virtually everyone, other than yourself of course, can distinguish between a concept and the application of that concept. A few rogue priests do not mean that all religion is child abuse. A few rogue police officers do not render the notion of policing a dangerous one. Transgender as a concept is far bigger than a few individuals who have misunderstood or misused it, just as it is far bigger than you. Trans, as an issue is where homosexuality was forty years ago, and where race was sixty years ago. Those battles have been won, less a few dinosaurs. Trans is rapidly becoming a recognisable feature of modern life, a welcome form of diversity. And like both race and homosexuality before it, the more open it is, the more accepted it is, and the more accepted it is, the less important it becomes. What gender a person is, or wishes to be, is really of no importance whatsoever, any more than to their sexuality, their race or where they REALLY come from. It's only obsessives like yourself who get uptight over this, an as those obsessives are overruled and die out, the issue will die away too. Eighty years ago, your life chances in the UK were severely impacted by your accent. That has ceased to be the case. As has the gender you present to the world ceased to be important.
The vitreol and law suits between lgbt and lgb, between ideologues and many homosexuals, shows it hasnt finished.
Your data is old bro!
 
The ability of individuals to choose what is good for them, implies all of "diversity, inclusion and equity"
So if people can choose to use traditional pronouns associated with the sexes, transactivists cant insist they dont? Right?
 
No one stops you thinking, no matter how horrific your thi. Laws proscribe actions, usually because they are harmful. You do not have the right to ignore such laws and cause harm just because you think you have a religious right to do so.
Just your opinion again
 
Yes, we do. It's just a different one.
I disagree. Christians believe atheists do not have an appropriate moral standard.

If somebody doesn't like the kind of music you like, "you have no taste in music" is a childish, solipsistic response.
The above is an example of why we discredit atheistic "morality." You condem yourself by the above comment because atheism is, par excellence, a solipsistic creed leading to a juvenile self-centred sense of morality which panders to self and is irreconcilable with the objectivity of the creator.
 
I disagree. Christians believe atheists do not have an appropriate moral standard.
This is equivocation - the charge was that we have no moral standard.

Whether or not you think our standards are appropriate, we have them.
The above is an example of why we discredit atheistic "morality." You condem yourself by the above comment because atheism is, par excellence, a solipsistic creed leading to a juvenile self-centred sense of morality
Rejecting theistic claims is not - and does not entail - self-centredness or solipsism.
I believe in exactly as many minds as you, minus one.
which panders to self
If my morality pandered to myself, I would have done some truly heinous things.

I think of others; I don't get my morality from a book.
 
This is equivocation - the charge was that we have no moral standard.
That's purely a question of definition.

If you accept morality as defined exclusively by someone exterior to yourself, you don't.

If you accept morality as variable and self-imposed, you do.

Whether or not you think our standards are appropriate, we have them.
That depends. When you're faced with atheist crooks, many will say, you've failed to prove it.

Rejecting theistic claims is not - and does not entail - self-centredness or solipsism.
It is an inevitable consequence.

I believe in exactly as many minds as you, minus one.
????????

If my morality pandered to myself, I would have done some truly heinous things.
Certainly you have done them, by God's standard.

I think of others; I don't get my morality from a book.
Your "morality" is relative, solipsistic, variable, dependent on the vagaries of philosophy (or not), and ultimately delusory because in the last resort it can be set aside: "These Are My Principles. If You Don't Like Them I Have Others" spoken by an atheist

No two atheists have the same values.

Christians don't get morality from a book, but persons whose words were recorded, and from a living Spirit which guides the application of moral principles.
 
It is an inevitable consequence.
Prove it.
Certainly you have done them, by God's standard.
But not by mine.
Your "morality" is relative, solipsistic, variable,
It may vary, but not at my whims.
I think that rape is immoral, and I can't just decide to find it moral.

Solipsistic? You don't seem to know what the word means - my morality is defined solely on the consequences to others.

Relative? I see no good reason to think that a "correct" morality exists.
I think that rape is wrong; rapists don't. Which of us is "correct"? No way to settle the question.
and ultimately delusory because in the last resort it can be set aside: "These Are My Principles. If You Don't Like Them I Have Others" spoken by an atheist
Quoting an unnamed atheist with whom I might not agree?
Great job.
No two atheists have the same values.
100% correct.

So?
 
Prove it.

But not by mine.

It may vary, but not at my whims.
I think that rape is immoral, and I can't just decide to find it moral.

Solipsistic? You don't seem to know what the word means - my morality is defined solely on the consequences to others.

Relative? I see no good reason to think that a "correct" morality exists.
I think that rape is wrong; rapists don't. Which of us is "correct"? No way to settle the question.

Quoting an unnamed atheist with whom I might not agree?
Great job.

100% correct.

So?
Your standards. LOL

You are just an insignificant speck of the universe
 
Prove it.
There is ultimately no other source of morality except a creator. Of course within a legal framework, everyone can agree to certain rules. But ultimately, right and wrong will have to depend on what view you take of life's purpose. The atheist view is variable, and so atheist moral systems are variable. The Christian view is imple: life's goal is conformity with the divine, so that anything that detracts from that is plausibly immoral.

But not by mine.

It may vary, but not at my whims.
I think that rape is immoral, and I can't just decide to find it moral.
But what is rape? All you've done is offload the definition of what is moral onto what is rape. What happens if a woman voluntarily disrobes in the presence of a man not belonging to a recognized profession? Should allegations of rape be entertained?

Solipsistic? You don't seem to know what the word means - my morality is defined solely on the consequences to others.
Then you would find the whole penal system immoral per se.

Relative? I see no good reason to think that a "correct" morality exists.
I think that rape is wrong; rapists don't. Which of us is "correct"? No way to settle the question.
Meaningless. What is the standard for rape? Not all allegations can be proven or objectively justified.

Quoting an unnamed atheist with whom I might not agree?
Great job.

100% correct.

So?
You concur that atheist "morality" admits of no fixed standard, is opinionated and radically different from theist morality.
 
Last edited:
We did it, boys!

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/census-less-half-england-wales-161128435.html

Christianity - 13% down.
Irreligion - 12% up.
I suspect that practicing Christians are tiny minority among the elites who run things in London.

Britain fought WW2 and the Cold War to save Christian civilization. Now woke governments are doing everything they can to destroy it.

Consider what would happen today if a British political leader made quotes like these from Churchill:
  • "I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin ... Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization." (June 18, 1940)
  • In 1938 Churchill asserted "there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power" because "that power ... spurns Christian ethics."
  • Churchill revealed to Britain's Conservative Party leadership in October, 1946 what he felt its "main objectives" should be. The list begins: "To uphold the Christian religion and resist all attacks upon it..."
  • In a 1949 speech to scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Churchill said: "The flame of Christian ethics is still our highest guide. To guard and cherish it is our first interest, both spiritually and materially. The fulfillment of spiritual duty in our daily life is vital to our survival. Only by bringing it into perfect application can we hope to solve for ourselves the problems and not of this world alone.
 
Back
Top