Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[a completely inoffensive name]

Times are tough, people will believe in something to help them in hard times. Tell me it's been on the rise for a decade straight and then I will worry.

[Rahwana]

Times are tough, people will believe in something to help them in hard times. Tell me it's been on the rise for a decade straight and then I will worry.

now now... when Jesus comes for the second time.. I'm sure many of us will suddenly turned Christian

[HoreTore]

now now... when Jesus comes for the second time.. I'm sure many of us will suddenly turned Christian

The christian god's existance is irrelevant to my faith. It's not about what is true or not, I consider the word of the bible as morally wrong and so I will never follow it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, reading this has provided some ammusement over the weekend.

Let's hope for Christian 'Research' that the pope, like them, will be blissfully oblivious of the fact that while church attendance has stabilised, population has sharply increased, thus decreasing church attendance as percentage of the population. Here you go:



UK population:

2001: 58,789,194 (Census)
2010: 63m (Estimate)
= 7.2 % growth


Catholics:
2001: 980.000
2005: 920.000
2010: 920.000
decline, stable from 2004/5

The Baptist Union of Great Britain:
2002: 148,835
2008: 153,714
3.2% growth.

Church of England:

2001: 1.2 million
2008: 1.145 million
decline


So the percentage of churchgoers has declined the past decade. The best that can be said, is that the decline seems to have mostly halted the past few years.

Worthy of note are:
The CoE, which can not increase its numbers with immigration, has declined most sharply of all percentage wise.

The decline of Catholicism in the UK stabilised from 2004/5, the exact year Poland joined the EU and a massive migration of Catholic Poles to the British Isles ensued. I wonder if there's a connection there...


All in all, we still seem to manage to enlighten them faster than they can breed and import.

A decline of 55,000 in the Church of England over 7 years is less than 5,000 a year, which can mostly be accounted for with the decline of the Anglo-Saxon population that has traditionally made up the CofE. In any case, CofE figures only account for Sunday Worship, not the various mid-week evening initiatives which many Diocese are now running.

So you aren't enlightening anyone, we're just dieing as a people slighting faster than we can win converts.

The other denominations are still increasing rather than falling, which indicates a very likely see-change overall, and no figures are given for the evangelicals, who have seen explosiv growth in the last 10 years or so.

Further, NONE of you have taken account of the people who have converted but do not regularly attend Church (which includes myself for complex reasons).

So, in orther words, slow growth or negligable decline probably indicates much larger growth which will only show in the numbers in another 5-10 years.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder when people will learn to doublecheck their data and not jump to the first conclusion they see...

Also, I'm happy to note that Christianity is still declining. To me, that can only be a good thing.

EDIT: I do wonder, will the financial crisis create more christians? I mean, I'm sure the number of alcoholics and junkies are on the rise now, and seeing as that's the primary breeding ground for potential christians, will we see a boost to the flock in a few years?

Hate mongering and belittling is usually taken as a sign of fear...

You probably understand it better than I do seeming your a practising Christian but I always thought the general theme was that OT God smited those on a regular basis who disobeyed him whilst the NT God is more "do what you like, just remember your going to hell for it".

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

Points of Theology:

1. Indulgences do not get you [into] Heaven they speed you through Purgatory. If you are in Purgatory you are already going to Heaven, indulgences are the equivilent of paying for a flight upgrade - they can't ever save your soul.

However, various Roman Catholic authorities have sold them at various times - which has always been illegal and has been repeatedly condemned by successive Popes (which might be ironic in some cases).

2. Christianity is less "Do what you like but you're going to hell" and much more "whatever you do, I'll let you off so long as you are genuinely sorry for it."

[HoreTore]

Hate mongering and belittling is usually taken as a sign of fear...

Yes, and I fear the cast of Paradise Hotel as well.

:facepalm:

But there is some truth to your statement, Philipvs; while a christian majority isn't exactly likely in the foreseeable future, the draconian laws they would implement should they get a majority is more than enough motivation we need to keep up the fight of keeping christianity down at a manageable percentage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, and I fear the cast of Paradise Hotel as well.

:facepalm:

But there is some truth to your statement, Philipvs; while a christian majority isn't exactly likely in the foreseeable future, the draconian laws they would implement should they get a majority is more than enough motivation we need to keep up the fight of keeping christianity down at a manageable percentage.

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

Nice guilt by association.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nice guilt by association.

It isn't guilt by association.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nice guilt by association.

Wrong try again.

[Hax]

While our great Norwegian viking friend horetore might not have explained it so eloquently, perhaps there is some basis of truth in what he says. I think that when junkies and alcoholics feel regret, and seek moral guidance, they may convert to Christianity as it can offer great relief to people in need. And I don't think that's bad.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While our great Norwegian viking friend horetore might not have explained it so eloquently, perhaps there is some basis of truth in what he says. I think that when junkies and alcoholics feel regret, and seek moral guidance, they may convert to Christianity as it can offer great relief to people in need. And I don't think that's bad.

His comment was still needlessly violent and hateful.

[Idaho]

needlessly violent and hateful.

A good description of the actions of the church in the Africa and the New World over the centuries ;)

[Vladimir]

A good description of the actions of the church in the Africa and the New World over the centuries ;)

Thank you for the appropriately gentile and loving .

[rory_20_uk]

I heard on Sunday a programme where people were desperately trying to justify why everyone should be respectful to the Pope...

• He's the head of state
• He's the head of a religion
• Erm...
• Just leave the wizened bigot alone, OK?

It was amazing really.

Going on about how the church was doing so much to sort out the abuses (that have been going on for the last 50 years or more), mentioning how the Pope had even met some victims to have a quick chat with!
The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).

Want to see the Pope? That'll be £25 per person please. And there was I joking the selling of indulgences... I'm sure that there is a wealth of difference in the two though.

[CountArach]

Simmer down a bit people, let's keep this above board.

[al Roumi]

Well, reading this has provided some ammusement over the weekend.

A decline of 55,000 in the Church of England over 7 years is less than 5,000 a year, which can mostly be accounted for with the decline of the Anglo-Saxon population that has traditionally made up the CofE. In any case, CofE figures only account for Sunday Worship, not the various mid-week evening initiatives which many Diocese are now running.

So you aren't enlightening anyone, we're just dieing as a people slighting faster than we can win converts.

The other denominations are still increasing rather than falling, which indicates a very likely see-change overall, and no figures are given for the evangelicals, who have seen explosiv growth in the last 10 years or so.

Further, NONE of you have taken account of the people who have converted but do not regularly attend Church (which includes myself for complex reasons).

So, in orther words, slow growth or negligable decline probably indicates much larger growth which will only show in the numbers in another 5-10 years.

So, after trumpeting that the stats Louis has used are proving that Faith is on the UP in the UK, you go on to discredit them when he uses them? Please...

Atheists aren't so good at performing the leap of faith cognitive jump to arrive at your final assertion.

[Beskar]

This was an interesting show on Panorama about the Pope:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...the_Pope_Knew/

It is about the catholic priests fiddling children. Apparently, John Paul II (previous pope) made sure there was an atmosphere of silence, whilst the current Pope, he completely reformed on how the Catholic Church deals with these issues, including assisting police investigations and reporting allegations.

Though there were some issues where he could have acted 'faster' pre-Pope and able to do these reforms.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, after trumpeting that the stats Louis has used are proving that Faith is on the UP in the UK, you go on to discredit them when he uses them? Please...

Atheists aren't so good at performing the leap of faith cognitive jump to arrive at your final assertion.

Um no, I said his analysis, that a small increase respesents a decline, was incomplete because the native population (from which Churches initially draw) has been falling. So if the fall year-on-year has been arrested that means that the Churches are recruiting faster than people are leaving, and a rise means they are even recruiting faster than people a dieing.

Going on about how the church was doing so much to sort out the abuses (that have been going on for the last 50 years or more), mentioning how the Pope had even met some victims to have a quick chat with!

This is somewhat unfair to the Roman Catholic church overall, as abuses 50 years ago cannot be undone by the current administration - not even the Pope has a time machine.

The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).

OK, this one always gets my goat: you don't want AIDs? Don't sleep with filthy prostitutes, given that many African men like "dry" sex anyway I doubt a change in the Roman Catholic Church would make a whit of difference. Certainly, no one (or very few) in the west bother with Church teaching on contraception any more than they bother with church teaching on chastity. Why pretend Africa is any different. Rampent HIV in Africa is a cultural problem, not a religious one.

Fact is if Africans followed ALL Church teachings on sex there would be no HIV, or virtually no HIV. Complaining that they only follow half of it is perverse!

[rory_20_uk]

Since not even members of the Clergy can follow their own dogma, it's not reasonable to expect others to do so.

The Church creates an environment where controlling the situation is made harder by going as far as to state that condoms don't block or indeed increase the spread of HIV. If everyone used a condom except when trying for children the rates of HIV would be massively lower.

Filthy prostitutes eh? All their fault. Oh great... what an ill informed comment. Vertical transmission? Infected blood? Occurrences of rape?

The church likes to go on and on about it's history. But seems extremely eager to gloss over less than godly occurrences. Either do a proper rooting out of what is frankly corruption and straighten things out (but the Catholic Church is a monolistic hierarchy, so not likely) or go back to basics and cut out the bloat that's set in over the last c.2000 years which is what many churches have done.

[Furunculus]

The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).

i won't argue the condom thing, it is of course daft, but the matter of AIDs in africa is made massively worse by the culture of men sleeping around, and an subsistence lifestyle that's puts women in the position of having to accept it because the alternative is being turfed out the house to face starvation if they have the temerity to question their husbands sexploits.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Since not even members of the Clergy can follow their own dogma, it's not reasonable to expect others to do so.

Quite true - but irrelevant. If they don't care about church teaching sex why do they care about church teaching on condoms? It's an excuse.

The Church creates an environment where controlling the situation is made harder by going as far as to state that condoms don't block or indeed increase the spread of HIV. If everyone used a condom except when trying for children the rates of HIV would be massively lower.

Also true, but the Church is correct insofar as condoms are far from bullet proof, and wearing one does not makes one genuinely "safe". Consider Horetore, who's little man goes away and hides at the prospect of not using a condom. So in that regard I do agree with the Church, just pushing the condom may well do more harm than good (there may even be a situation where people do reuse a condom in Africa, they have to reuse everythin else, and then it would be true that the increase the risk of infection.)

Filthy prostitutes eh? All their fault. Oh great... what an ill informed comment. Vertical transmission? Infected blood? Occurrences of rape?

Well, once you contract HIV you should probably be neutered/rendered infertile, but the modern world doesn't have the stones to contain the pandemic, does it? the fact is most transimissions come from illicit sex, and a lot of that is from transient workers who pay for it and then go and infect their wives.

as to women with HIV positive husbands?

Grounds for an annullment I'd say - failure to fulfill conjugal rights.

The church likes to go on and on about it's history. But seems extremely eager to gloss over less than godly occurrences. Either do a proper rooting out of what is frankly corruption and straighten things out (but the Catholic Church is a monolistic hierarchy, so not likely) or go back to basics and cut out the bloat that's set in over the last c.2000 years which is what many churches have done.

Here you will have no dissagreement from me, which is why I am not Roman Catholic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Want to see the Pope? That'll be £25 per person please. And there was I joking the selling of indulgences... I'm sure that there is a wealth of difference in the two though.

And don't forget the official merchandise, proceeds flowing into the Vatican coffers!

When the Pope stretches out his arms to the masses gathered in parks in Glasgow, Birmingham and London this weekend, the rock star parallels will be exaggerated by the appearance of the adoring crowds.
Some will be wearing the official papal visit T-shirt (£18) while holding aloft an electronic flashing candle (£3).


Others may sport, against the autumn chill, an official baseball cap (£15) bearing the slogan of the newly beatified Cardinal Newman: "Heart Speaks Unto Heart".




It's good to see the Vatican work for a living, makes for a nice change from its other sources of income such as its mafia branches in Italy and running Belgium's largest ring of paedophile brothels.

[HoreTore]

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

If we are to take the christians seriously, then the following will at the very least happen:
*abortion made illegal
*gay marriage banned
*preaching and prayer will be allowed in school
*limits to divorce

....Which is what I would call draconian, especially the abortion one.

And yes, britain in the start of the century did have draconian laws like the death penalty, sodomy laws existed, divorce was a lot harder and abortion was illegal and treated like murder.

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down.... That might not be a coincidence....

His comment was still needlessly violent and hateful.

Uhm, what? Are you ashamed that your faith converts junkies? Do you consider them lesser people, or what?

Because fact is that junkies and alcoholics is one of christianity's top sources of converts. And a rise in the number of junkies will logically be followed by an increase in the number of christians.

[Furunculus]

If we are to take the christians seriously, then the following will at the very least happen:
*abortion made illegal
*gay marriage banned
*preaching and prayer will be allowed in school
*limits to divorce

....Which is what I would call draconian, especially the abortion one.

And yes, britain in the start of the century did have draconian laws like the death penalty, sodomy laws existed, divorce was a lot harder and abortion was illegal and treated like murder.

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down.... That might not be a coincidence....

that's a particularly blinkered view that disallows for evolution, are you sure you really want to go down this road when railing against the flaws of religion?

so much anger, and i say this as an indifferent agnostic!

[HoreTore]

that's a particularly blinkered view that disallows for evolution, are you sure you really want to go down this road when railing against the flaws of religion?

so much anger, and i say this as an indifferent agnostic!

My points were a quick summary of most christian party programmes. When a party writes something in a programme, I assume that they will at the very least try to impllement in when they gain power. Is that a flawed view?

And yes, I am quite aware of the existance of liberal and socialist christians, but they are a minority and not the group most people convert to.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down

Not really, the high point of Christianity in terms of its social influence was probably around the mid-seventeenth century.

Around then, the more hardline Christians were fighting for their freedoms, while atheists like Thomas Hobbes were writing works to justify absolute monarchs.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think you missed the 20th and 21st century there. The 17th century may look dramatic but there's an awful lot of more down-to-earth conflicts going on, which time and again was resolved as summed up succinctly at the time: cuius regio eius religio. Notice how religion is still a function (dependent on) who holds power... Not the other way around. Contrast that with the influence that cardinals hold in Italian politics; despite the fact the Vatican is not supposed to meddle in the affairs of another state, right? Or pick Iran or Pakistan where officials would not dare risk open confrontation with clergy for obvious reasons that have less to do with wrath of God or Allah and more to do with the wrath of an angry mob and their way of lynching people.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It isn't guilt by association.

Wrong try again.

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country). The religious right Christians in countries do make almost all social laws based upon what their religion dictates. Gay marriage= Jesus doesn't like it. Ground Zero Mosque= Intolerance towards religion that's not Christianity.

Also, don't tell me the UK didn't have "draconian" measures. You only decriminalized homosexual male intercourse in 1967. Up until then you cracked down on those gays including Alan Turing, who then killed himself. But I guess ruining the life of one of the most brilliant mathematicians and computer scientists because he was gay isn't "draconian" to Christians, it's just keeping the country "clean" for God.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not really, the high point of Christianity in terms of its social influence was probably around the mid-seventeenth century.

Around then, the more hardline Christians were fighting for their freedoms, while atheists like Thomas Hobbes were writing works to justify absolute monarchs.

Yes, Thomas Hobbes does represent all atheists (of that time). What a great argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country).

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.