Religious Affiliation in USA Continues to Decline. WHY?

[outhouse]

Your the reason why educated people are turning away from mythology. You don't know moderation and you refuse credible knowledge.

You refuse education, and its just terribly sad. People are not falling for the myth any more.

The college I lecture at, the whole class knows its myth. Not one argument as I teach people the correct knowledge.

 

[Skwim]

Huh? What is incorrect about 2 Peter 2:5 ?

It only identifies Noah as a preacher, not that he 'preached but no-one believed him." Your imagination is working on overtime.

The Ark was No short-term project. It took decades to build.
Don't you think people would ask Noah why he was building such a HUGE Ark on dry land?
Surely Noah, a preacher of righteousness, would have explained and invited those whom he talked with to join him on the Ark.

You can do all the supposin' you want, but in the end that's all it is. The fact remains, the Bible does not say or even imply that "Noah preached but no-one believed him."

You do understand how inconsequential imagination and supposing is, don't you?


.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Religiosity in the United States is in the midst of what might be called ‘The Great Decline.’ Previous declines in religion pale in comparison.
Over the past fifteen years, the drop in religiosity has been twice as great as the decline of the 1960s and 1970s.
source​

_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________

source​

__________________________________________
__________________________________________

The analyses, published this month in the journal PlosOne (link is external), reveal a seismic generational shift in religious commitment. Twice as many high school seniors, and 3 times as many college students, described their religion as “none” in the 2010s (vs. the early 1980s). Even among 8th and 10th graders, who have only been surveyed since the early 1990s, 40% to 50% fewer now affiliate with a religion.
source
​

As I said, WHY?

What are your ideas, suspicions, guesses?

Religion is highly correlated with destitution/poverty and lack of education. People are more educated than ever in the us, and, in reality, less people are truly needy, so religion is a less necessary vice these days.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Religion is highly correlated with destitution/poverty and lack of education. People are more educated than ever in the us, and, in reality, less people are truly needy, so religion is a less necessary vice these days.

Educated in what ?
Educated Not in religion ( love neighbor / be honest ) but in violence. Violence is No longer a man's club but now includes women and children.
As crime goes up so does violence. Crime and violence are growing hand in hand.
Educated in crime, even accepting pay under the table with an estimated 97 billion+ loss of tax revenue each year. How many tax dodgers now exist ?
Well over 60% admit cheating on school tests. Would you want that test cheater to be your doctor ?
How many lie for their Boss, or tell lies about advertised products ?
How many are educated to cheat on welfare payments when they are capable of working.
Crime ( red, white or blue ) is replacing base ball as the great American pass time.
Since being corrupt and uncorrupt are diametrically opposed, then yes, the more educated than ever USA is in the lack of the ' religious Golden Rule ' the more corrupt the USA is.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Your the reason why educated people are turning away from mythology. You don't know moderation and you refuse credible knowledge.
You refuse education, and its just terribly sad. People are not falling for the myth any more.
The college I lecture at, the whole class knows its myth. Not one argument as I teach people the correct knowledge.

No one should deny that religious myths exits. It has existed from the time of ancient Babylon - Genesis 10:8-10
When the people migrated out of ancient Babylon they took with them their false religious concepts and ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great. That is why we see similar overlapping ideas in the religious world. That does Not make the teachings of Jesus as wrong, but makes the false teachings as wrong. Including the false teachings taught about Jesus which are out of harmony with the 1st-century teachings of Christ.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It only identifies Noah as a preacher, not that he 'preached but no-one believed him." Your imagination is working on overtime.
You can do all the supposin' you want, but in the end that's all it is. The fact remains, the Bible does not say or even imply that "Noah preached but no-one believed him."
You do understand how inconsequential imagination and supposing is, don't you?
.

Who was Noah preaching to if Not the people of his day - 2 Peter 2:5 - If any believed Noah they would have come on the Ark with Noah and his family.
Since only Noah and his immediate family were on the Ark, doesn't that show the rest had No interest in what Noah - a preacher of righteousness - had to say.

 

[Willamena]

As I said, WHY?​

What are your ideas, suspicions, guesses?

Because they're becoming more Canadian.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe Noah preached but no-one believed him. They had a chance to be saved. Certainly there will be those who will say that there will be no fire and ignore the call to be saved. Also I believe the devil is working overtime to try to convince people that the salvation is a trick. However say a Muslim knows about the rapture and the call goes out. Will he not respond in faith in Allah? Sure many will be called but few will be chosen. However those are relative terms and the few may be millions and the many billions.

What ' fire' did Jesus mention at John 3:16 B ?
What 'fire ' is mentioned at 2 Peter 3:9
What ' fire ' is mentioned at 2 Thessalonians 1:9
What ' fire ' is mentioned at Psalms 92:7

 

[Skwim]

Because they're becoming more Canadian.

All in all, not a bad turn of events at all.

 

[Muffled]

What ' fire' did Jesus mention at John 3:16 B ?
What 'fire ' is mentioned at 2 Peter 3:9
What ' fire ' is mentioned at 2 Thessalonians 1:9
What ' fire ' is mentioned at Psalms 92:7

I believe none was mentioned.

2 Thes. 1:7.

How about this one?
2Pe 3:12 looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe none was mentioned.
2 Thes. 1:7.
How about this one?
2Pe 3:12 looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Interesting that at 2 Peter 3:12-13 elements are mentioned. Since they did Not have the Periodic Table, then the elements must be the elementary or base things of earth.
That unprecedented fervent ' heat ' will melt away all the corrupted ' elements ' of Satan's system - Revelation 12:12 - exposing them as totally lacking in fire-resistent ->qualities.
See also Malachi 4:1; Jeremiah 25:31-33; Psalms 92:7
Peter was Not here speaking of a destruction of the literal heaven and earth - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B. The heavens and earth to which Peter was referring are thus symbolic or stands for our present corrupt human authorities and of today's ungodly human society - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
The ' Day of God ' will Not destroy earth - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B, but annihilate earth's sinners - Isaiah 13:9; Isaiah 11:3-4; Proverbs 2:21-22
For the living ' sheep ' on earth at the soon time of Matthew 25:31-33 - the ' Day of God ' will therefore be a ' day ' of salvation - Revelation 7:14; Isaiah 26:20

 

[outhouse]

No one should deny that religious myths exits. It has existed from the time of ancient Babylon - Genesis 10:8-10
When the people migrated out of ancient Babylon they took with them their false religious concepts and ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great. That is why we see similar overlapping ideas in the religious world. That does Not make the teachings of Jesus as wrong, but makes the false teachings as wrong. Including the false teachings taught about Jesus which are out of harmony with the 1st-century teachings of Christ.

You should not comment on things you know nothing about.

Israelites adopted quite a bit of Babylonian mythology in the OT lots of it. The flood myths, adam, and on and on and on.



And quit quoting the bible for historical purposes, it factually has no credibility in such.

 

[outhouse]

Who was Noah preaching to

No one.

He factually has no historicity as ever existing outside mythology.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

2 Peter 2:5 And God is Not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, *a preacher of righteousness*, safe with seven others when God brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people.

 

[outhouse]

No one should deny that religious myths exits.

No one should accept them without credible evidence

Noah, *a preacher of righteousness*, safe with seven others when God brought a flood

Mythology by all academic standards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Who was Noah preaching to if Not the people of his day - 2 Peter 2:5 - If any believed Noah they would have come on the Ark with Noah and his family.
Since only Noah and his immediate family were on the Ark, doesn't that show the rest had No interest in what Noah - a preacher of righteousness - had to say.

If you told me you were building a box you wanted to fit all the animals of the world plus your family AND you wanted all of us to come onboard as well, is it really my fault if I think it's bull? There's a reason Ken Ham has to beg KY for tons of money and equipment to make what is a big box and all Noah had was Noah...

edit:

And God is Not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, *a preacher of righteousness*, safe with seven others when God brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people.

This righteous man got drunk off his *** and cursed a grandchild because his sons saw him nursing his bender nude. God has LOW standards.

 

[Skwim]

Who was Noah preaching to if Not the people of his day - 2 Peter 2:5 - If any believed Noah they would have come on the Ark with Noah and his family.
Since only Noah and his immediate family were on the Ark, doesn't that show the rest had No interest in what Noah - a preacher of righteousness - had to say.

Or they never heard him because he never said anything. Again, and please read carefully, the Bible doesn't say he preached anything about the coming flood. Only that he was a preacher.

 

[Muffled]

Interesting that at 2 Peter 3:12-13 elements are mentioned. Since they did Not have the Periodic Table, then the elements must be the elementary or base things of earth.
That unprecedented fervent ' heat ' will melt away all the corrupted ' elements ' of Satan's system - Revelation 12:12 - exposing them as totally lacking in fire-resistent ->qualities.
See also Malachi 4:1; Jeremiah 25:31-33; Psalms 92:7
Peter was Not here speaking of a destruction of the literal heaven and earth - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B. The heavens and earth to which Peter was referring are thus symbolic or stands for our present corrupt human authorities and of today's ungodly human society - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
The ' Day of God ' will Not destroy earth - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B, but annihilate earth's sinners - Isaiah 13:9; Isaiah 11:3-4; Proverbs 2:21-22
For the living ' sheep ' on earth at the soon time of Matthew 25:31-33 - the ' Day of God ' will therefore be a ' day ' of salvation - Revelation 7:14; Isaiah 26:20

I believe that is far fetched. Elements were fire water air and earth according to one of the philosophers so the concept is the same. What is you take on the Heavens being dissolved?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe that is far fetched. Elements were fire water air and earth according to one of the philosophers so the concept is the same. What is you take on the Heavens being dissolved?

I think we can have a lengthy discussion about the ' heavens ' mentioned in Scripture.
I'll start with the heavens of OLD ( Noah's day - 2 Peter 3:5 )
We know the literal heavens and earth were Not dissolved or destroyed in Noah's day. So, Peter was Not talking about our literal heavens but those ruling over the people being lofty over them like the heavens. The NEW heavens and earth - 2 Peter 3:13 - is Not replacing God's heavenly home - 1 Kings 8:27,49 - but replacing man's lofty rulership over earthly society.
Righteousness will dwell on earth during Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over earth - Psalms 72:8; Psalms 72:12-14
For now we have a struggle with spirit powers in ' high places ' ( heavens ) - Ephesians 6:12
The symbolic fiery destruction of heaven and earth - 2 Peter 3:7-12 - very well corresponds to visions ( or very-vivid word pictures ) found in Revelation 21:1; Revelation 20:11
Our material/ physical earth is permanent - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B.
The first heaven - 2 Peter 3:5 - is the OLD heavens of Noah's day. The second heaven - 2 Peter 3:7 - is the NOW heavens from Noah's day to our day. The third heaven - 2 Peter 3:13 - is the NEW heavens, or the coming new heavenly ruling by Christ Jesus for a thousand years over earth - Revelation 20:6; Revelation 5:9-10

 

[outhouse]

We know the literal heavens and earth were Not dissolved or destroyed in Noah's day.

Is there such thing as a literal heaven?

When exactly did Noah exist, what year did he exist, how long ago exactly?