You must log in or register to comment.

BobbyP27 t1_iyc4gen wrote

In essence, the population has been largely non-religious for decades, but a lot of people identify as “Christian” for cultural rather than actual religious reasons. The number of people who self identify as belonging to the Church of England who actually go to Church is less than 10%. The main change is that people who lead non-religious lives are now being more honest about it.


IAMRETURNED t1_iycrs4k wrote

No fear of reprisals from enthusiastic zealots helps a great deal I feel.


Steadypirate t1_iyd43ta wrote

None sarcasm aside this is probably it. A lot of friends who used to hide behind Christian are now openly pagen or one of billion ways people call those who follow the Nordic gods.

I only really starting admitting it after work went to great lengths to show it would be a good thing and celebrated by them and i would not be treated like some looney lol

(Got to thank Iceland the country for that one to be honest as that was example work used to show I would be ok lol)


codydodd t1_iybgy5l wrote

Unrelated, but I always found it fascinating that the Romans brought Christianity to the Isle, and to Ireland. But after the fall of the romans, paganism re-spread. Ireland contributed to the British regaining christianity like a century later iirc.


WhoStoleMyPassport t1_iybtlc4 wrote

The Baltics were the last region in Europe to be converted to Christianity in the 13th Century. And so the pagan traditions are still strong and they have nation wide pagan celebratinos in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and they are as popular as Christmas.

And in the recent years the pagan Church or whatever its called is growing while other religions are loosing members.


Baneken t1_iycmu3c wrote

No, Lapland was the "last bastion" of paganism in Western Europe.

Last witch drum burning and destruction of the remaining sacred Siidas were done at the early 19th century.

In Russia most Finnic groups have basically syncretised their animism with Orthodoxy creating a kind of pseudo-christianity with elements from both.


russdb t1_iybry1v wrote

Christianity was actually already there, especially on Ireland.


BobbyP27 t1_iyc46b1 wrote

Largely because after the Romans left there was a large scale population migration into England, who brought their language, culture and religion with them. In Roman times the population of what is now England were essentially Welsh. Wales and Cornwall and Scotland were the bits the incoming people didn’t reach.


FaeQueenUwU t1_iyc9k5i wrote

When the Germanic tribes appeared they didnt really mingle with the Britons, they made their settlements outside of the Romano-Briton towns and cities. Yes it was a big migration but not as big as people think it is, because you can see it in the DNA makeup of people in the UK, Britons and mostly those in the East have up to 10% of Germanic DNA the rest is Celtic/Briton, so there was no replacement or anything, and at most what happened is that the Germanic tribes eventually took over and people assimilated into their culture because it was easier than resisting.


LudicrousSpeedGoJr t1_iybzrf2 wrote

Meanwhile the US is going straight Gilead.


InfamousBrad t1_iyc8ufj wrote

Not necessarily. Assuming current trends continue, in about 30 years, Americans with no religious affiliation will outnumber Christians, and in a little over 50 years, they will become the actual majority.

Furthermore, the "Gilead" denominations (white evangelical, white Catholic) are the ones experiencing the fastest rate of decline, because they are having record-low success evangelizing non-Christians and because record-low percentages of white evangelical and white Catholic parents are forcing their children to go to church.


moses420bush t1_iyca44o wrote

Incoming global recession and the zombie economy finally collapsing after the 2008 crisis means lower living standards which leads to more support of right wing authoritarian groups like the american christian right.

America already lost abortion rights, the Christian right already have some power and it may continue to grow.


InfamousBrad t1_iycaqdk wrote

What you're seeing is the last gasp of the boomer generation. Someone forwarded me a column the other day, by an evangelical lobbyist who'd seen the cross-tabs on the 2022 mid-terms, lamenting the fact that the millenial and "zoomer" generations are "completely lost to us," permanently alienated. (He blamed the schools, unsurprisingly.)

What you're chalking up as victories for them are more like desperation plays. They're willing to stretch for any short-term gain, however unpopular or unsustainable, because they know they've got maybe 4-6 years before they're so small they're not even useful to the Republicans any more, and then their movement is over.


moses420bush t1_iyceku5 wrote

Yeah that's a good answer, its nice to look on the brighter side. I'm still worried about "desperation plays" with the system the way that it is now. A handful of people with enough power have the ability to change law against the popular opinion, changes that may take years to repeal.

I'm also not sure you can say there won't be a new Christian right forming and taking over from the old, there are many reasons why people turn to more extreme politics and those reasons are increasing throughout the west. If certain laws are put in place now which change the world and perceptions of the next generation its not too hard to see a more difficult few decades coming.


InfamousBrad t1_iyf1bow wrote

I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and say that I know that you're wrong, but that doesn't seem to me to be the way that it's gone in the past, at least not here in America. This last decade feels a lot like the 1850s to me, or the 1930s. And remember that evangelical fundamentalism was founded as a reaction to what came after the rubble stopped bouncing in 1865 and then again in 1945. Both of those disasters left the public with an intense distrust of ideologues and partisans, and Christianity changed both times to become more social-gospel and less partisan, people flocked out of the mainstream churches, and into either secularism or mainline denominations.

After the chaos of the last 60 years, I think we're due for decades of the American people remembering what ideological purity and hyper-partisanship cost us or almost cost us and reacting against that, not burrowing deeper into it. At least, that's what I expect.


Paintingmyfreedom t1_iycp32r wrote

Eh the number of religious is still shrinking. They are just making up for it by ramping up the crazy at an impressive rate.

I don’t know why you call them Christian’s and participate in their game of pretend that it has anything to do with what Jesus talked about.

I don’t think it’s growing, just imploding as it faces irrelevancy. Death throes.


samus12345 t1_iyf2det wrote

Republicans in power are, yes. But the percentage of people who are actually practicing Christians gets smaller by the day.


Fit-Satisfaction7831 t1_iybh6tl wrote

Pretty funny how all these religions are ultimately going to be a very, very brief paragraph in the history of humanity; most won't even last as long as pyramids.


joaquinqro t1_iybm8in wrote

Bold to assume humanity has a long way ahead.


russdb t1_iybs0gg wrote

Venus 2.0, that is our future.


Card_Zero t1_iycf7y0 wrote

I don't know, that involves all the water boiling off. Surely there'd be a Carboniferous 2.0 before that could happen, with swamp forests everywhere.


Paintingmyfreedom t1_iycp54y wrote

The future of humanity is living underground in tunnels like rats, not in the stars


chadenright t1_iybp9uo wrote

Yeah, we'll be lucky if we don't have a Bronze Age Collapse within a century or so. Eight billion people in an environment of widespread climate change, resource wars leading to the collapse of the global food supply and a return to waves of famine refugees in the hundreds of millions...the war in Ukraine is just the start. Things are going to get ugly.

And hey, maybe when things get really bad we can rely on fortified outposts of insane religious zealots to preserve our most important art, literature and scientific advancements. Maybe even a couple copies of wikipedia.


Card_Zero t1_iycfhu4 wrote

I hope they will also preserve the talk pages and the long argument I had once about tablespoon sizes.


Areat t1_iyc117u wrote

Are we so sure it's the fall of religion in general and not just Christianity? Would be interesting to see the stats of under 25 years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but atheism is still mainly a white thing. Not only, but mainly. And last year census had white pupils only being 28% of the total in London.


PM-ME-PMS-OF-THE-PM t1_iyc9pyz wrote

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but atheism is still mainly a white thing.

I feel like it's more of a Western thing than a colour of skin thing. Religion seems to thrive in poverty and become gradually less and less prevalent the higher standards of living become.


philman132 t1_iycebml wrote

The largest majority atheist country on earth is China, who are usually not considered white


Areat t1_iycys13 wrote

State enforced atheism mean nothing. Ex USSR countries reverted hard to orthodox christianity and islam once it fell.


Gotisdabest t1_iycc3qn wrote

Atheism is mostly a thing of the rich and well educated. Due to a long series of socioeconomic factors, those happen to mostly be white people. As we see massive growth in third world economies their religions too, will drop very quickly.


TheElusiveEllie t1_iycsn12 wrote

I read their comment differently. There may or may not always be religion, but each of these INDIVIDUAL religions will die out tens of thousands of years from now, for one reason or another. The ancient religions of the past are dead, so too will be the current religions, and one day the religions of the distant future will die out as well.


magicsheepcreations t1_iyc22ar wrote

The stats did show a rise in belief in other religions but the news report lumped stuff together and talked about a rise in numbers rather than percentages. Felt like the typical racist reporting with skewed data so harder to get a fair idea


ygofukov t1_iybkh75 wrote

You think? Religions like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are less than 200 years old. Scientology is less than a century old. Moonies are about the same. Same with Unitarian Universalism.

I feel like there is always going to be some group who founds them/attends them/sticks with them.


aTalkingDonkey t1_iyc4vjw wrote

well no.

"civilisation" has been around for about 10,000 years. christianity has existed for 2000, jusasim 3500.

remote "uncivilised" cultures such as indigenous australians have had their religion for more than 30,000 years.

Our global society will collapse eventually - it has to. and from there new religions will pop up.


Foundation12a t1_iycansz wrote

Global society doesn't collapse without human extinction at this stage. Tech has come too far.


aTalkingDonkey t1_iycloro wrote

No. Tech only exists while people are able to afford it.

As soon as it becomes unaffordable, it becomes rare. Imagine if the next 5-7 generations of phone are 7k each, it would only take 10 years for smart phones to become like yachts.


Foundation12a t1_iycpmuk wrote

Except that will never happen due to mass proliferation of the technology, there are already billions of phones and a phone that costs a 1/10th of a flagship 5 years ago already outperforms it in all metrics.

Your given scenario is therefore impossible, any company that charges that much for a phone when there are literally thousands of alternatives will go bankrupt and it's customers will buy elsewhere.


tootoohi1 t1_iyc4fgo wrote

This is such an anti-intellectual take. Yeah I'm sure in humanity's future they'll look back to when they pulled themselves from living in caves to organizing with philosophy and the 2nd biggest literacy increase in populations besides industrialization and think it was dumb and not important.

Redditors with the least amount of knowledge of history/ religion will say ignorant things like this in a news sub and get the updoots straight to the top because you owned the dumb Christians.


Fit-Satisfaction7831 t1_iyc5hdb wrote

You attribute philosophy and literacy to religion, but these concepts predate today's religions by hundreds-to-thousands of years. The religions that were around during their inception are already a very, very brief paragraph in the history of humanity.


Paintingmyfreedom t1_iycpau9 wrote

Its almost as if literacy existing can be divorced from literacy rates.


Taino41 t1_iybh5sk wrote

Well done UK!


letsreticulate t1_iybtxxd wrote

Islam is second.

Edit: Why am I being downvoted? This is a correct statement. If you read something beyond it, that's on you. Says more about you than it says about me.


Fit-Satisfaction7831 t1_iybv2i0 wrote

The tldr summary says:

  • Christian 46.2%

  • No religion 37.2%

  • Muslim 6.5%

That is a distant third, although Christianity will probably catch up (down?) with the trajectory 'No religion' is on.


foobarijk t1_iyc1byw wrote

They'd probably meet halfway, before Muslim overtakes Christian. The Muslim trajectory is up - 6.5% compared to the 4.9% it had in the previous census.


Lilybaum t1_iycdr5g wrote

Yeah but a lot of that is immigration. The interesting question is the trend of religious affiliation of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.


The_NeutralGuy t1_iyc46hn wrote

Fact - Islam population increases from 9.5% (1951) to 14.2% (2011) in India. Good luck UK.


TheNonViolentOne t1_iycdpz5 wrote

Boris once called Muslim women "letter boxes", in public, and got away with it with zero backlash.

I think the UK's attitude towards religion will hold up.


thewidowgorey t1_iybfgpd wrote

Thought this said “US” at first glance and got too excited. Maybe one day…


mvario t1_iybfr2q wrote

There was something in the last few days that said over 50% in the US weren't a member of an organized religion. Not quite the same, but something.

Humans really need to put these primitive superstitions behind us.


ygofukov t1_iybjuvv wrote

Sadly we will just invent new reasons to be sadistic assholes to one another.

We'll trade old -isms for new ones.


Winnmark t1_iyblgm9 wrote

Make me.


mvario t1_iycutnq wrote

You cannot force intellectual maturity upon someone, they come to it by themselves, or they don't.


bruinslacker t1_iybzcfc wrote

US is about 68% Christian. That number has been falling. In 20 or 30 years we might follow the UK.


zoinks10 t1_iycfilm wrote

Do you guys have forced religious assembly at school? That’s what caused me not to believe. I was a child but the adult spouting some religious bullshit at the assembly made no sense whatsoever.

I loved books on dinosaurs and this fuck is trying to persuade me Noah had an Arc.


Nukemi t1_iychlll wrote

This is how went for me too. I just rebelled against the forced religion bullshit at early ages and when i got old enough to have thoughts my own i just realised it just a adult storybook people take in to heart.

Im pretty sure i would have come in to this conclusion even if i had not been fed christian bullshit from early age anyways, but it certainly helped as it left me with a serious distaste to all religious crap for years to come.


zoinks10 t1_iycmjy2 wrote

Given I was one of the few kids who enjoyed learning at school I felt this robbed me of time I could have spent learning something useful, like maths or science.


Nukemi t1_iyd8bcs wrote

Same here. I was not great at school. But, when i was interested about something, i was able to do well in it.

I hated "studying religion" from the "you have to believe in this" -perspective, but theology as a concept interested me. Would have rather have studied that instead of being force-fed jesus is our savior -shit and forced to sign hyms orchestrated by our overly zealous religious teacher.


bruinslacker t1_iye1ojy wrote

No. No public school in the US (paid for by the public not the same as a UK public school) is allowed to have any forced religious activity. In my opinion the Constitution also forbids voluntary religious activity if it’s led or organized by the school, but exactly where that line is drawn is debated.


samus12345 t1_iyf2x16 wrote

The effects of the religious fanatics who founded this country are still felt hundreds of years later.


Norseviking4 t1_iycbyf2 wrote

As a long time atheist i will say huzzah!


autotldr t1_iybeump wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)

> For the first time, less than half of the population in England and Wales identifies as Christian, according to census data released Tuesday.

> It remains voluntary to answer, but fully 94.0 percent of respondents did, according to the ONS. Some 27.5 million people or 46.2 percent in England and Wales described themselves as Christian, down 13.1 percentage points from 2011.

> "No religion" rose by 12 points to 37.2 percent or 22.2 million, while Muslims stood at 3.9 million or 6.5 percent of the population, up from 4.9 percent before.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: percent^#1 Christian^#2 people^#3 population^#4 religion^#5


FriedKrakenEater t1_iybnsyy wrote

"...and cannibalism his risen by 50%..." ---American Christians probably


samus12345 t1_iyf323b wrote

Oh, like symbolically eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood?


FM-101 t1_iycjcly wrote

“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.”


AccursedQuantum t1_iyblhvg wrote

Bible already says actual followers of Christ will be a minority, regardless of what people answer in demographics.


Trance354 t1_iydesyk wrote

Um, technically, NOT the "first time."


Cr33py07dGuy t1_iyc69oe wrote

Violent crime close to historic lows. Could be a coincidence.


nznordi t1_iyc6sve wrote

But the real question is, how’s the weather?


DarkIegend16 t1_iyex3op wrote

Shit just the way we like it, nothing beats a cozy rainy day! Unless you’re homeless of course then it’s a bummer.


Raoulhubris1 t1_iydo1t8 wrote

That’s evolution for you. Baby steps.


Bardaek t1_iydb69e wrote

Occurring in a time of UKs fall from relevancy… purely coincidental. All that no Christian stuff must be working for good. I’m sure it’ll all finally result in the UK returning to their former glory. Just gonna take time.


DarkIegend16 t1_iyexd08 wrote

How do you define relevancy politically? Because it seems like all people seem to be talking about is Britain and their departure from the EU as well as their contribution to Ukraine. I’d go as far as to say their “relevancy” is quite high.


[deleted] t1_iyc7i6t wrote



lmaydev t1_iyc8n32 wrote

It's actually atheism that's going to take the majority.

Muslims make up around 6% I think.


red_purple_red t1_iydknz3 wrote

The Woke Agenda banned teaching this in schools, but Stonehenge is actually believed to be the place where Jesus ascended into Heaven after his Resurrection. Another interesting tidbit about the history of Christianity in Britain!


Gibbonici t1_iydqhww wrote

Believed by who?

I went to a C of E school long before the so-called "Woke Agenda" (and before political correctness, for that matter), and was never taught this.


DarkIegend16 t1_iyeyeoz wrote

The British and the English especially so are very well aware of the historic conquests to Jerusalem, why would they have done that if Jesus decided to conveniently travel thousands of miles to the would be UK before ascending?

Nobody thinks Jesus was ever in the British Isles not because of some “woke agenda” suppression but because it’s utter nonsense. Just more nationalistic religious fanaticism where history is bent to the prospective of those who want to be included in the story they’re so obsessed with.


paradroid78 t1_iyf5o0k wrote

>Stonehenge is actually believed

Actually, recent investigations suggest that stonhenge was built by the mole people for the Iluminati in the 19th century as the headquarters of their secret world government. Everything else that's told about it is now believed to have been an elaborate cover up by the establishment.


nadmaximus t1_iycby2a wrote

This relies on self-reporting, of course. There could be Christians who have no idea they are "that way". Or are in denial of it, and only secretly Christian, perhaps even publicly anti-christian. Of course you could also have false Christians who are just using Jesus as a beard.


[deleted] t1_iycq812 wrote



nadmaximus t1_iyd8wyv wrote

I was making a joke about "Christian" being something that you are, as opposed to being an adherent.


Alert_Salt7048 t1_iybj4q8 wrote

I bet Islam is at an all time high though.


The_NeutralGuy t1_iyc3fad wrote

Fact - Islam population increases from 9.5% (1951) to 14.2% (2011) in India. Good luck UK.


CrackerWars t1_iybj48p wrote

Very concerning. The decline of religiosity and morals will be the end of this country.


pessimus_even t1_iybjzhz wrote

If you need a book to tell you not kill, murder or generally not to be a shit, you're probably a shit anyway.

Religion has done more harm than good


highblacksky7 t1_iybspd2 wrote

I'm not religious and have been accused all my life by religious people of not having any morals.


Winnmark t1_iyblid9 wrote

Prove it.


Exoddity t1_iybmob0 wrote

tosses you a history book


Winnmark t1_iybmvre wrote

In my experience, nine times out of 10, people pick and choose the way they want to make history seem to better their cause.

It's not your fault, I'm pretty cynical after all.


Exoddity t1_iybn0fu wrote

> In my experience, nine times out of 10, people pick and choose the way they want to make history seem to better their cause.

The way you say that with no sense of irony could make a dark man blush.


Winnmark t1_iybn3f5 wrote

On the contrary, I believe that all human institutions are flawed.


Godsarefakezz t1_iybnh2p wrote

As is your god.


Winnmark t1_iybniw1 wrote

Prove it.


Godsarefakezz t1_iybnm9v wrote

You just said human institutions are flawed, who made humans?


Winnmark t1_iybnyrf wrote

You are under the assumption we were made flawed.

Good argument though, I've never seen this out of your average redditor. I like it. I still find it troublesome, of course, but good try.


Godsarefakezz t1_iybo5i2 wrote

So he fine tuned us in such a way we would be flawed?


Winnmark t1_iyboej9 wrote

Who did?

Furthermore, we could have been made perfect, and then broken down. Or, I suppose we could have been made flawed on purpose.

Who knows bro.

This has been fun, but I have to run Keep on thinking, and I'll keep on drinking Don't jump to conclusions, we all have our dilutions


Godsarefakezz t1_iybor2l wrote

How could we be made perfect, if there was the possibility that we would be broken?


Rusticaxe t1_iyc22c7 wrote

God works in mysterious ways /s

But God in general is kind of a genocidal asshole, and as we are made in his image, we are as well.


Bowbreaker t1_iyc6st0 wrote

Perfect things don't break down. Breakage happens through imperfection. Except, I guess, if them breaking down is a feature and they break down perfectly. At which point we are back at the "on purpose".


shmip t1_iybqd5m wrote

Hey it sounds like you know about this stuff, can you help me understand a question I've been thinking about?

Imagine a dad saying this to their kids: "If you stop loving me, I will make your life Hell."

That isn't love, it's abuse.

Why isn't it abuse when god says it to us?


Winnmark t1_iybsj7k wrote

I'll bite, and only because you flattered me. What? I am vain as well. Caesar was, look how it turned out for him!

Right. These types of questions typically carry a few preconceptions:

  1. hell is the cartoonist's depiction of devils with whips and a never-ending fire
  2. there is an active decision made by God to put someone in hell
  3. a fundamental misunderstanding, or flat out ignorance, of the mechanics of sin 3.A) A fundamental misunderstanding, or flat out ignorance, of how sin affects our relationship with God
  4. a misunderstanding of love, in a theological context
  5. The idea that God chooses to love, or hate, people on the flip of a dime, or on a precarious balance read out of people's "good" or "bad" actions.

This is a MASSIVE oversimplification, but essentially, when we choose to sin we choose to replace God and make ourselves be deities, thus magnifying all of our positive and negative traits to their possible extremes.

If we choose to replace our creator with ourselves, thereby separating each other, then we cannot access the true love of the Creator The absence of true love then, would be hell

It's like saying I want to quit my job right now, but I still want to receive the paychecks. Or, renouncing your citizenship, but still feel that you should cast a vote in this or that election.

I encourage you to, should you actually be interested in this, further look into points one, three, and 3A. There are several religiously themed subreddits you may wish to explore, given that this post was specifically talking about Christianity, you might want to look at r/AskAChristian


shmip t1_iybuioe wrote

Do you think a loving god would create a world that requires such weirdly complicated reasoning to explain why their love isn't abuse?

Seems like love should be pretty easy to recognize.


Rusticaxe t1_iyc2xik wrote

God is a genocidal asshole that Christians pray to out of fear instead of love.


GoogleOfficial t1_iybxlhe wrote

This is all based on nothing. Kind of sad that you are so far in the cult that you are spinning this nonsense as though it’s in any way intellectual.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.


Winnmark t1_iye8w7u wrote

I just want to point out reddit's bigotry here. You're not actually making any arguments and instead attacking me as a person, and your comment has upvotes, but every one of my common has down votes.

It's a mixture of hilarious and infuriating. I worry about what you might do to me, and people like me, if consequences and anonymity were removed. Not just anonymity.

I need a drink


GoogleOfficial t1_iye9bix wrote

Yes, the persecution fetish. Never mind the fact that the religious have been persecuting those who they don’t like for thousands of years.

Don’t drink too much buddy, otherwise you’ll burn forever.


ThymeParadox t1_iybz3yy wrote

I take issue with 2, especially.

God is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. Nothing happens that he did not foresee. And since he would be the first cause, everything that happens, happens as a consequence of his act of creation.

With those three traits combined, how can you going to hell be anything other than an active choice on god's part? God established the 'rules' for which afterlife you go to. God established the rules of causality that lead to your existence. And god has the ability to tweak the initial conditions of the universe in such minute ways to cause your life to play out differently.

If god is omniscient, omnipotent, and the first cause, it follows, as a logical necessity, that god absolutely makes an active choice and is directly responsible for the afterlife that every single person goes to.


Maeglin8 t1_iyeqcf1 wrote

Not a Christian, but I can't help noticing that while God is posited to be omniscient and omnipotent, people are also posited to have free will. But, if people have free will, then God cannot, by definition, be omnipotent: if you have free will, you have some of the power, however small a sliver, and God does not have literally all of the power, which is what "omnipotent" means.

You can't solve a logic problem if the premises of the logic problem contradict each other.

If one treats this as a logic problem, and tries to resolve the contradiction in the premises by assuming that people have free will and God is only Really Powerful, not literally omnipotent, then it's entirely logically consistent to posit a universe where people can decide that they are going to go to Hell and God can't do anything about it.

Why would an omnibenevolent God set up a universe like that? I'm not a Christian so I'm not going to worry about it too much. But I will observe that any universe God creates where people have both meaningful free will and the ability to meaningfully affect each other, will be a universe whose people have the ability to make choices that are... suboptimal... for each other. And maybe you don't want some of the people who have shown that they consistently make choices that are suboptimal for each other going to Heaven. Especially since God's not legally obligated to scrupulously follow the descriptions of Hell in medieval literature when making it.


ThymeParadox t1_iyer7gj wrote

I think, based on my understanding of Christianity, a Christian would simply say that god has the power to override your free will, but simply chooses not to, and as such god is still omnipotent in that he still can do all logically possible things.

But there are still lots of problems with the tri-omni stuff, a very obvious one, in the context of this conversation, being 'is god incapable or unwilling to give people that don't accept Jesus a pleasant afterlife?'


Winnmark t1_iybzp5z wrote

He may have set things in motion, but he does not prohibit us from changing the outcome, if we choose to.

The rules are set, but we get to choose how/if/when we follow them.


ThymeParadox t1_iyc10s1 wrote

So god, in all of his omniscience, didn't know what choices we would make from the first moment of creation?


Winnmark t1_iyc14d6 wrote

He did/does.

He'll just never force anyone to do anything.


ThymeParadox t1_iyc1m9m wrote

With omniscience and omnipotence, he could alter the initial conditions of reality in order to lead someone to make a different choice. By setting up reality the way he did, god is choosing to lead everyone towards the choices he knows they will in fact be making.

You can't have it both ways. Either god is not omnipotent and/or omniscient, or god is responsible for the choices that we make.


shmip t1_iyd22hj wrote

Thanks for the indepth answer. I'm not trying to bait you by replying again, my other reply was more rhetorical, with this one I just want to make it clear what I see as the conflict.

I'm not trolling. As someone that grew up very christian, I'm interested in the ways that abrahamic believers think about love and abuse.

Abusers use complicated reasoning to explain how the damage they inflict is actually helping, how everything is done out of love, and how the rest of us don't see that because we're too dumb to understand the complexities so just stay out of it.

A loving god would never make the rules so crazy that you need to be a theologian to really understand them. That's the kind of crap an abuser does.

Love is simple. Control is complicated.

It's hard for me to see how such a complicated control structure is really about love underneath it all, especially when the control aspect is usually used for pain.

Thanks again for the chat.


Winnmark t1_iye89qt wrote

Anytime. Next time maybe send me a private message, I lost so much karma, here because of the bigots it's not even funny lol

With that said, I also think it's not complicated at all. There's no abuse here. I simply think some people have already made up their minds before they look at any argument for or against something.

It's actually incredibly difficult to try and look at something objectively. It's very difficult to ignore our feelings, our goals in life, our experiences, so on and so forth.


pessimus_even t1_iybn80y wrote

So you need more than the literal thousands of kids that have been fucked?


Winnmark t1_iybncqo wrote

Yeah. That's why I don't belong to any of those denominations or sects or cults or what have you.


pessimus_even t1_iybor8a wrote

Ah, of course, your version of it is better than others, I'm sure


AnimatorJay t1_iybnsvi wrote

Ethnic cleansings and genocide, child abuse, human trafficking/ sex slavery, actual slavery, preying on addicts, attacks on LGBTQ, pushing their social stigmas on everyone else, etc., etc.,

Religion is a cudgel for the wealthy and powerful to hold dominance of the populace, binding the lower class to rules that the top does no need to follow because they have no actual force to hold them accountable.

Religion is a ponzi scheme. It always has been.

There are small/ local religious centers that do use their platform to help people, and they tend to operate by practicing what they preach. They are community-oriented, not interested in painting an "other."

Then there are others that are vicious and suspend their followers in a state of fear or rage until one of them goes out and bombs a Planned Parenthood or mosque.

Faith is not a problem. Believe in the giant fairy man if you want. But religion seeks dominance and to impose itself on as many as possible.

Which is why the US derives laws from universally pro-community tennets found across many societies throughout history and not from the strict religious interpretations from a single book.


Winnmark t1_iybo6a5 wrote

You're saying that people have used religion to do some terrible things, yeah that's not new buddy.


ThymeParadox t1_iybz7dh wrote

I mean, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and slavery are in the bible, so, I don't think it's just people misrepresenting an otherwise 'good' religion.


3dio t1_iyc1ecw wrote

That just means they were present before the Bible. The Bible didn't invent those. Human condition remains the issue religions aimed at. Sure. It was used as an instrument of control but we humans have a tendancy to blame a 3rd party or system or environment (in hindsight usually). See what religion made us do! No my friend. There are human beings driving this thing. With human beings at every junction making horrible and irrational decisions.

We've proven time and again that we don't require religion in order to dominate brutalize torture kill and rape the "other". We humans like to justify crimes. Religion is an inevitable invention. Considering we know virtually nothing about our universe and environment


ThymeParadox t1_iyc2kcl wrote

Well, yes, obviously it's just humans making choices, because the bible is a work of man.

But contextually, we're talking about whether or not Christianity is a good source of morality. People that believe it is tend to do so because they believe it to be a divine work. But those people need to reckon with the heinous acts commanded by their god.


3dio t1_iyc3h5t wrote

Religion is great when applied to self. It is absolutely horrible when attempting to impose itself on others. People are prone to madness. Religion or no.

Blatant and directed misinterpretation allows religion to be used as a weapon and means of control by clever conman. Yet every system of hierarchy we create is bound to be corrupted just look at the state of nations. With rule of law. Fighting internally and with other nations. Our modern political systems can also be hijacked by madmen


AnimatorJay t1_iyct9k3 wrote

You said prove it, then answered your own statement here: people use religion to do terrible things.

It isn't uniquely a religious problem, but it is a great scapegoat, especially when you think your god will favor you for them, or don't actually believe in it but use it anyway for justification.


thrownaway2e t1_iybv1fu wrote

Prove that YOUR book is good because it is good. Why is god good? What about god makes him good, or is he good in it of itself, which makes morality arbitrary?

Essentially Euthyphro's dilema


Godsarefakezz t1_iybndmw wrote

Decline of religiosity and morality are two different things.


WhoStoleMyPassport t1_iybty5x wrote

Studys have proven that non religious people have a higher moral standard and are more accepting of minority groups and modern trends.

While religious people are more likely to have more Conservative views.


Prestigious_Split579 t1_iybr71y wrote

They'll be fine. As long as people have morality, which they do, they'll be completely fine even without religion.

And ironically, this is coming from a believer of christianity.


DarkIegend16 t1_iyexl4b wrote

Clearly a pushy religious nut who seems to have convinced themselves that religious devotion equates to moral standing. I and others don’t need to be scared by a hell to do the right thing, you do.


SuddenlyHip t1_iybud1b wrote

The most controversial thing you can say on Reddit is to point out the fact that Christianity shaped western morality, even though it's obviously true. The influence of Christianity, and Abrahamic religions in general, is even more apparent when we compare the cultures of colonized nations outside of Europe before and after the introduction of Abrahamic religions.


GoogleOfficial t1_iybyk6l wrote

Judaism shaped Christianity, and that was shaped by previous moral codes. Where did the original moral come from?


SuddenlyHip t1_iydwn9a wrote

Jewish people and their beliefs were unique and they were a minority who lived in relative isolation. To act like Jewish beliefs were an amalgamation of popular contemporary beliefs is laughably wrong and minimizes, if not outright ignores, the discrimination they faced for thousands of years. It’s easy to see the tenets of Abrahamic religions be commonplace throughout the world now and assume that was always the case, but history tells us the exact opposite.

Anyways, while Jesus comes to fulfill the Old Testament, he also provides new teachings that Christians follow and Jews do not. Therefore, some teachings Christians follow are unique to the teachings espoused Jesus and his followers.


GoogleOfficial t1_iydyf1f wrote

I’m saying all those beliefs were influenced from somewhere before them. Don’t fight a straw man.


SuddenlyHip t1_iyetlv6 wrote

If you have a problem with my statement, it’s up to you to refute it. Go ahead and research every tenet of Judaism and then Christianity and find where “the original moral come from”. It’s an argument in futility and you know it. I don’t understand why my original fact gets Redditors riled up so much.


3dio t1_iyc1hce wrote

Judaism is nothing like Christianity


Bowbreaker t1_iyc6xba wrote

And yet it did shape it a lot.


3dio t1_iyc7tnl wrote

Not in any significant way though as far as I can tell. Influence went both ways. Today's progressive Judaism and has some influences of Christianity. While living under Christian rule had shaped the orthodox Ashkenazi tradition


Bowbreaker t1_iyc8766 wrote

Most of the anti-sex mentality comes from Judaism. The monotheism and denying the existence of other gods as well. The idea of a perfect creator god. And everything else from the Old Testament that Christianity still considers valid as opposed to just being historic.


3dio t1_iyc9f45 wrote

Sure. Montheism came as alternative to then loads of other socalled pagan tribes, each with a different experiment of religious invention. Some with sex based ceremonies, some involved human sacrifice/cannibalism, some had various gods for various purposes. Etc But by no means did they "invent" the basic family / social rules and values. Nor tried to convert others to their religion. The sex thing is not really a sex thing. It's a anti-desire/greed self control thing that’s my prevelant in most religions.

with that said, the basic understanding of what God is, the Hebrew texts and the punishment/reward mechanisms as well as ceremonies are completely different in those religions


Bowbreaker t1_iye5bd7 wrote

They were harsher than most contemporaries on queer sex, or really any sex outside of the purpose of procreation. Pagan religions at the time had little such compunctions. At most they were against excess. Or looked down on certain practices without banning them.

As for what God is, Christianity kept one part and added two more faces (but oh no they are definitely not three separate gods).

Honestly, I can't think of a (not recently invented) religion that is more similar to Christianity than Judaism (from which it came) and Islam (which was heavily inspired by it), especially not Christianity's main rival to overcome, Greco-Roman paganism. Other older religions are even more different.

Anyway, you sound like you have a horse in this race. Like you are either Jewish or Christian and feel almost offended about your "real" belief being compared to the other "wrong" one.


3dio t1_iyf6ghd wrote

Christianity is not similar to Judaism. Judaism do not seek to spread itself and convert unwilling people etc. Islam is inclusive. Christianity is convinient and maybe loosley derived. There many differences in between. When you say more than most to what exactly are you comparing? I'm not sure i can take you seriously you seem highly biased


3dio t1_iyc1wmq wrote

In Judaism. Encouraging conversion from people outside the faith is strictly prohibited. And converting into the faith is a daunting process. Compare to the other derived BIG religions which offer easy conversion and actively work to convert (to score god points) you can understand why Judaism didn't grow and spread like Christianity and Islam. Saying "Abrahamic religions" is a very shallow overview which suggests those different faiths are the same


SuddenlyHip t1_iydqefw wrote

I agree with why Judaism isn’t as widespread as the other religions; I never said anything to the contrary. Anyways, they all descend from the same guy, have the same God, and have more in common with each other than they do non-Abrahamic religions. I think it’s fair to group them and I never claimed they were the same.


3dio t1_iydsqg4 wrote

i disagree with it being fair. It’s about as fair as saying all religions are the same. Or some other generalisation of religious people. Which once again, is shallow since there are different types. Thia doesn’t do any justice to the subject. If the analysis of the subject is shallow then there’s not much chance of having a meaningful conversation