More Muslims turning to Christ in Iran.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD2hWtb7MTc

OLAADEGBU: More Muslims turning to Christ in Iran.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD2hWtb7MTc

You do realize that, in Iran, apostasy is punishable by death, right? As in if you, as a Muslim turn to Christ and they find out, the government will fúcking kill you.

The Muslims are just a few decades behind the Christians who just stopped killing followers of other religions recently and are still persecuting them whenever they can get away with it.

OLAADEGBU: And this was from a year earlier. The population of Chinese Christians are said to be more than the total population of Nigeria put together.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT3TtcQF1Cw

Keep lying for Jesus. . .Show us where it is written that there are more than 150million christians in China. . .The latest count keeps it at about 75 million. . I know lying for Jesus is your forte. . .

@OLAADEGBU
The current population of China is over 1.2 billion people so the christians and the current population of christians in china is only 23 million according to my simple googlehttp://www.christiantoday.com/article/over.23.million.christians.in.china.official.survey.shows/26488.htm Why do you have to lie to defend to defend your religion? . Besides the topic is just telling you the fact that that you being born into a christian hindu muslim buddhist etc is just an accident of birth and your bound to practice an defend the religion your born into. Its very rare for someone to change their religion. You posting posts with the infomation of christian populations in china and Iran has nothing to do with the topic. Its off topic.

OLAADEGBU: And this was from a year earlier. The population of Chinese Christians are said to be more than the total population of Nigeria put together.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT3TtcQF1Cw

you do realize China's population is 1.2 billion people right?

so even if the 100+ million christians in china figure is true (which I'm sure it's not) it would still only be roughly around 10% of their total population

manmustwac: @OLAADEGBU
The current population of China is over 1.2 billion people so the christians and the current population of christians in china is only 23 million according to my simple googlehttp://www.christiantoday.com/article/over.23.million.christians.in.china.official.survey.shows/26488.htm Why do you have to lie to defend to defend your religion? . Besides the topic is just telling you the fact that that you being born into a christian hindu muslim buddhist etc is just an accident of birth and your bound to practice an defend the religion your born into. Its very rare for someone to change their religion. You posting posts with the infomation of christian populations in china and Iran has nothing to do with the topic. Its off topic.

I know that you athiests have set yourselves up as the custodian of the truth but let disturb you with some solemn truths. Most of the Chinese folks you saw in those videoclips were born in China into a non christian environment who got converted by the power of the gospel that you reject. You may quote the population of "Christians" in official churches permitted by the Government but the exponential growth is taking place in the underground churches of which you know nothing about. So your philosophies are proved to be wrong as evidenced by these same videoclips that you are trying to hide under the carpet so that they don't see the light of the day. You might as well close the thread since it is your forte to close topics you don't agree with.

OLAADEGBU:

I know that you athiests have set yourselves up as the custodian of the truth but let me upset the apple pie with some solemn truths. .

Upset the apple cart, NOT apple pie. Freaking slavish christian imbe.cile..

OLAADEGBU:

I know that you athiests have set yourselves up as the custodian of the truth but let me upset the apple pie with some solemn truths. Most of the Chinese folks you saw in those videoclips were born in China into a non christian environment who got converted by the power of the gospel that you reject. You may quote the population of "Christians" in official churches permitted by the Government but the exponential growth is taking place in the underground churches of which you know nothing about. So your philosophies are proved to be wrong as evidenced by these same videoclips that you are trying to hide under the carpet so that they don't see the light of the day. You might as well close the thread since it is your forte to close topics you don't agree with.

I didn't want to put numbers in my earlier post because there's simply not enough information, but even the most optimistic estimates stop at about 70 million. Where did you get the other 50 million? We should take your word for it because? And again, these are the most optimistic estimates, the actual number is probably lower. Probably higher than the official ~30 the government gives, but almost certainly not by over double that figure.

Official count of muslims is at about ~20 million. I'll estimate ~45 million xtians and ~30 million muslims for now. Considering the population of china, these numbers are very small. And that is the point of this thread, very few people consciously choose their religion after even the slightest bit of impartial deliberation, their choice is often determined by indoctrination. In fact, even in these populations, when the head of the family switches religion, s/he will probably take their family along as well. So indoctrinated are numerous in these figures as well. These arguments don't actually help your case. In fact, if we look closely, it will probably aid mine. I would just have to show that most of this population is comprised of family units, not the odd individual family members with the gall to think for themselves. I don't have the time or bandwidth to spend on videos, etc atm though

And what are these atheist philosophies you speak of?

Random: @vedax, take a bow, seems like you've earned yourself some disciples, incredible...


edit: these guys have 40 million protestants, 14 million catholics, so roughly 55. It also points out the 130 seems to be a made up number among other things. Like a lot of these churches wouldn't qualify as xtian to many, they'd be more like cults. Then again, the number of these sort of xtians is unknown.
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08120056.htm

this article says govt paper said at least 50
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/18/chinese-christians-religion-house-church

So I would raise my estimate optimistically to 65, roughly 5 percent of the population.

More random: no clear numbers on how many families involved, but apparently 70 percent are women
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/over.23.million.christians.in.china.official.survey.shows/26488.htm

Women and religion...

#lying for Jesus

OLAADEGBU:

And this was from a year earlier. The population of Chinese Christians are said to be more than the total population of Nigeria put together.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT3TtcQF1Cw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82oyveG0U8

Here are the facts since it seems you guys are so used to propaganda you no longer know the truth when you see it.

OLAADEGBU:

Here are the facts since it seems you guys are so used to propaganda you no longer know the truth when you see it.

I'd be lying if I said I've seen the video, but your talk of propaganda brings this to mind


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKpATvkWEA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkNKpATvkWEA

Just replace 'lie' with 'irony', and have homer read your post

OLAADEGBU: More Muslims turning to Christ in Iran.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD2hWtb7MTc

What do you think about this? An American christian converts to islam


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljs71ILQZrU

@ wiegraf

The mere fact that there are millions (whether in the tens or hundreds) of Christians in China defeats your basic premise.

If Geography was the sole determinant then there would be no Christians in China or any of the countries Rossike listed.

No one has denied the (great) influence of geography (more aptly social/family context) on an individual's initial leanings in terms of religion. Even the bible itself says Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

However, the incontrovertible evidence is that regardless of geographical location/upbringing, an individual can come to a realisation of Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour.

Furthermore, I posit that it is not simply a matter of being an accident of birth. Nigerians (for example) were not Christians since time immemorial - a series of deliberate actions led to the conversion of your parents/grand/great-grand parents into Christianity before you were born into that family.

No one single factor is (sufficiently/solely) responsible for the religious leanings of an individual.

debosky: @ wiegraf

The mere fact that there are millions (whether in the tens or hundreds) of Christians in China defeats your basic premise.

If Geography was the sole determinant then there would be no Christians in China or any of the countries Rossike listed.

No one has denied the (great) influence of geography (more aptly social/family context) on an individual's initial leanings in terms of religion. Even the bible itself says Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

However, the incontrovertible evidence is that regardless of geographical location/upbringing, an individual can come to a realisation of Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour.

Furthermore, I posit that it is not simply a matter of being an accident of birth. Nigerians (for example) were not Christians since time immemorial - a series of deliberate actions led to the conversion of your parents/grand/great-grand parents into Christianity before you were born into that family.

No one single factor is (sufficiently/solely) responsible for the religious leanings of an individual.

Why do some people lie and deny in the name of Jesus?


Who doesnt know that there are christians in China? The point being made is that the probability of people growing and dying with the religion they are born with is very very very high! Furthermre, there are countries with national religions or majority religions. The majority religions either have the most converts or the most influence in daily thinking of the country

If one is born in china to a buddhist family, there is very little chance he would be a christian.

^^

I never said geography is the sole determinant.

Undoubtedly though, the society you grow up in, your family and culture, is the most important determinant for most. 5 percent of china are xtian, probably introduced by foreign clergy, etc. It is the most popular religion in the west, today's alpha society, with their borders opening up exposure is unavoidable. Lots of chinese are some sort of atheist, but note, atheism is not a religion. We can assume that a nice chunk of these 5% were not indoctrinated, but quite a few would be as well. If society were not a factor, I would think it rather obvious that the distribution would be rather more balanced, no? There would be more sikhs, muslims, etc as well as xtians, based on what a person's personal philosophy is. You think it a coincidence that members of most family units share the same faith? Members of most tribes share the same faith, let alone families. These people weren't given a choice as kids, they were told not to question, and that usually sticks.

Observe how many atheists can school a lot of religious about their faith, they have no problem discussing buddhism, xtianity or islam. More importantly, they understand the principles behind faith based religious systems. That's because most of them have actually taken the time to review these systems and determine which one best suits their individual needs. Of course as atheists, their choice is obvious. If you approached chinese xtians that are genuine converts, not indoctrinated, you'd probably find that they are well versed in religious lore of all sorts as well. Or at least have applied some consideration into their beliefs, not just blind, senseless parroting.

And many grand-fathers etc were cajoled one way or the other into one faith or the other. My mother went to a missionary school, her father had to convert to achieve this. Think of your tribe if you were colonized by muslims back in the day. Even ethnic German jews during the nazi years, despite the fact jews like to think themselves the 'chosen'. Financial reasons, etc. The inevitable (and true) comment about 'our slave masters' will soon show up. All this should be obvious though.

Logicboy03:






Nonsense and lies for Jesus!


Who is persecuting christians inn southern Nigeria?

Northern Nigeria is part of Nigeria. Southerners also live in the North if you are not aware.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZkAZQ3circ

Martian:

Upset the apple cart, NOT apple pie. Freaking slavish christian imbe.cile..

Thanks but no thanks for the correction. I hope you feel much better now?

[/quote]I never said geography is the sole determinant.[/quote]

You didn't, but the OP did - which is the core dispute on this thread.

Undoubtedly though, the society you grow up in, your family and culture, is the most important determinant for most. 5 percent of china are xtian, probably introduced by foreign clergy, etc. It is the most popular religion in the west, today's alpha society, with their borders opening up exposure is unavoidable. Lots of chinese are some sort of atheist, but note, atheism is not a religion. We can assume that a nice chunk of these 5% were not indoctrinated, but quite a few would be as well. If society were not a factor, I would think it rather obvious that the distribution would be rather more balanced, no? There would be more sikhs, muslims, etc as well as xtians, based on what a person's personal philosophy is. You think it a coincidence that members of most family units share the same faith? Members of most tribes share the same faith, let alone families. These people weren't given a choice as kids, they were told not to question, and that usually sticks.

I agree largely with your comments, but that means you do not agree with Rossike – he expressly asserts that Geography is the primary/sole determinant. Yes political power, sphere of influence, etc. do affect the 'uptake' of a religion, but even in locations where these factors are against Christianity, Christians are still found.

Observe how many atheists can school a lot of religious about their faith, they have no problem discussing buddhism, xtianity or islam. More importantly, they understand the principles behind faith based religious systems.

I would say they don’t – they have intellectualised the faith based religious systems, and once you do that, you lose the ‘true’ principle behind faith. Anyone can ‘analyse’ a subject and claim to ‘understand’ it, but without true experience of the subject, this understanding falls short and is merely academic in nature.

E.g. 'studying' Yoruba culture and actually being born/immersed/living cannot be compared in terms of understanding.

And many grand-fathers etc were cajoled one way or the other into one faith or the other. My mother went to a missionary school, her father had to convert to achieve this. Think of your tribe if you were colonized by muslims back in the day. Even ethnic German jews during the nazi years, despite the fact jews like to think themselves the 'chosen'. Financial reasons, etc. The inevitable (and true) comment about 'our slave masters' will soon show up. All this should be obvious though.

Being 'cajoled in one way or the other' or simply choosing to accept a faith is very different to claiming it is simply an accident of birth – again, your post disagrees with the principal assertion of the OP – that is the import of my post.

debosky:
I agree largely with your comments, but that means you do not agree with Rossike – he expressly asserts that Geography is the primary/sole determinant. Yes political power, sphere of influence, etc. do affect the 'uptake' of a religion, but even in locations where these factors are against Christianity, Christians are still found.

Erm, yeah, it's pretty obvious he doesn't mean every one, at least to anyone with a brain. Else, if he were born in 9ja, he wouldn't be an atheist, yes? It's a dumbed down message meant to address sheeple, who enjoy rhetoric and what not. It's an effective way to get your point accross with them, this isn't the scientific community you're dealing with. Recently, popular threads have included one where sp.erms spiritual properties were examined. Just look through the /religion threads to get a sense of what I mean, clearly not the most objective bunch. Now, if you're one of those that has no problem with those threads, I would find it a bit disingenuous for you to suddenly obtain an objective, literal bent here, no?

The goal of the op is to force one to examine how he acquired his faith, this is an effective way to achieve this.

debosky:
I would say they don’t – they have intellectualised the faith based religious systems, and once you do that, you lose the ‘true’ principle behind faith. Anyone can ‘analyse’ a subject and claim to ‘understand’ it, but without true experience of the subject, this understanding falls short and is merely academic in nature.

E.g. 'studying' Yoruba culture and actually being born/immersed/living cannot be compared in terms of understanding.

I disagree. Like languages, I would say a linguist who can speak yoruba is more useful than the average yoruba speaker. He would even be able to decipher new words/phrases (so long as they are not related to some esoteric culture, and even native speakers might be unaware of those) he had never heard before because he understands the laws, how the words are put together, how the language works. Native speakers work with mostly with instinct. Sure all their thinking may be done with it, but they can't tell you how and why so, and may fumble when they come across new situations. What you are claiming is like saying a mechanic is better than an engineer. No, not really

debosky:
Being 'cajoled in one way or the other' or simply choosing to accept a faith is very different to claiming it is simply an accident of birth – again, your post disagrees with the principal assertion of the OP – that is the import of my post.

See above. The cajoled are not the indoctrinated anyways. Different sort of ignorance, maybe, or sometimes those left without a choice.

wiegraf:
... this isn't the scientific community you're dealing with. Recently, popular threads have included one where sp.erms spiritual properties were examined. Just look through the /religion threads to get a sense of what I mean, clearly not the most objective bunch. Now, if you're one of those that has no problem with those threads, I would find it a bit disingenuous for you to suddenly obtain an objective, literal bent here, no?

As for the latter two lines, it depends!

It depends on the basis of a discussion - if a categorical statement is made (like the OPs) and the veracity of such a statement can be determined (from evidence), then it will be open to objective challenge.

However, if a discussion is about opinions on a matter that can never be conclusively proved one way or the other, then there is no requirement for an objective/literal bent.

The goal of the op is to force one to examine how he acquired his faith, this is an effective way to achieve this.

If that is the purpose, then I have no issue with this, however it seems to be more than that - the purpose is more akin to challenging the fundamental beliefs of Christians:

Hence it is PREPOSTEROUS, ARROGANT, and the height of TOMFOOLERY to purport to be practising the ''one true religion'' - not just because it makes out the Creator to be irrational - bequeathing righteousness on humans merely by geographical accident - but because it betrays a tragic Tunnel Vision, in which the individual is incapable of conceiving of legitimate existence and value outside of the narrow box he's been placed in from birth, by his geographic location.

In short, the concept of exclusive divinity is an expression of ignorance and intellectual deficiency.

Clearly much more than just an examination of the 'process' of acquiring faith and more of an attack on the faith itself.

I disagree. Like languages, I would say a linguist who can speak yoruba is more useful than the average yoruba speaker. He would even be able to decipher new words/phrases (so long as they are not related to some esoteric culture, and even native speakers might be unaware of those) he had never heard before because he understands the laws, how the words are put together, how the language works. Native speakers work with mostly with instinct. Sure all their thinking may be done with it, but they can't tell you how and why so, and may fumble when they come across new situations.

Culture is comprised of more than languages, so you may have missed my entire point here.

Besides, even in the realm of linguistics - especially for languages with limited documentation/written descriptions - only by being immersed with native speakers can deeper nuances of even commonly used expressions be deciphered. An 'abstract' or 'detached' study of a subject can never bring about the same level of understanding as being immersed/living/becoming an embodiment of the same subject.

What you are claiming is like saying a mechanic is better than an engineer. No, not really

No - what I am asserting is that an engineer who understands only the principles of how an engine should work under controlled conditions will not possess the practical understanding of a mechanic who has spent years fixing engines subjected to operating conditions the engineer did not even imagine - especially when the factors cannot be quantified.

More succinctly - if 'hands on' empirical knowledge is missing, the understanding claimed is not wholesome.

See above. The cajoled are not the indoctrinated anyways. Different sort of ignorance, maybe, or sometimes those left without a choice.

I never implied the above - again, the import was that the 'mere accident of birth' theory is untenable.

We agree on a lot, except maybe the nature of the op and what type of knowledge is more valuable.

debosky:

As for the latter two lines, it depends!

It depends on the basis of a discussion - if a categorical statement is made (like the OPs) and the veracity of such a statement can be determined (from evidence), then it will be open to objective challenge.

However, if a discussion is about opinions on a matter that can never be conclusively proved one way or the other, then there is no requirement for an objective/literal bent.

Well, we've more or else been saying the same thing here, actually wanted to point that out at the beginning but thought meh, and you've pointed it out of course. I'm not so sure the op's statement qualifies as categorical though, again consider the intended audience. But you're more troublesome than the average, I can't use you for cheap shining, so I'll come clean and accept we're more or else saying the same thing here...for now...

So let's examine context, which would be related to purpose...

debosky:
If that is the purpose, then I have no issue with this, however it seems to be more than that - the purpose is more akin to challenging the fundamental beliefs of Christians:



Clearly much more than just an examination of the 'process' of acquiring faith and more of an attack on the faith itself.

Again, that would be misunderstanding considering context. The aim of the post is to challenge 'sheep', or those who have not really examined their convictions. For sheeple, this stands. Their beliefs are based on 'geography', so the rest follows (maybe not as colorfully, but not by much). You would be correct in pointing out not all religious are 'sheep' though. So, I suppose your challenge is valid, but you are ignoring context/the intended audience.

Perhaps I'd be happier if you just said 'not all religious are sheep', keeping things simple, in the spirit of the op. Then again, I would counter by saying the very vast majority are sheeple, like we atheists have already pointed out.

debosky:
Culture is comprised of more than languages, so you may have missed my entire point here.


More succinctly - if 'hands on' empirical knowledge is missing, the understanding claimed is not wholesome.

Culture is comprised of more than languages, but the individual components work in the same way, unless I'm missing something you can point out. So I'd just replace linguist with anthropologist and my points still stand.

The understanding of an intellectual/theorist may not be wholesome, but is it less valuable than that of someone's based on empirical knowledge? I think not, I think it a lot more useful. That would probably be a longer debate though, do we have the resources to take on that?

debosky:
I never implied the above - again, the import was that the 'mere accident of birth' theory is untenable.

Ok


Edits

wiegraf: We agree on a lot, except maybe the nature of the op and what type of knowledge is more valuable.
Again, that would be misunderstanding considering context. The aim of the post is to challenge 'sheep', or those who have not really examined their convictions. For sheeple, this stands. Their beliefs are based on 'geography', so the rest follows (maybe not as colorfully, but not by much). You would be correct in pointing out not all religious are 'sheep' though. So, I suppose your challenge is valid, but you are ignoring context/the intended audience.

Perhaps I'd be happier if you just said 'not all religious are sheep', keeping things simple, in the spirit of the op. Then again, I would counter by saying the very vast majority are sheeple, like we atheists have already pointed out.

I try not to conflate issues/threads and try to examine each on the basis of its own merits/demerits. I fear you give the OP too much credit - I don't think his intent is as nuanced as you imply. It sounds like a bog standard attack on religion, not a challenge.

All Christians, regardless of being 'sheeple' or otherwise hold the tenets he challenged as true - as a result it cannot be construed as a challenge only to those who lack knowledge or a simply being led by the nose.

Culture is comprised of more than languages, but the individual components work in the same way, unless I'm missing something you can point out. So I'd just replace linguist with anthropologist and my points still stand.

We've gone off on a bit of a tangent, but I'll persist a little while longer. I largely agree with you, but let's just say any anthropologist that hasn't spent sufficient time being immersed in the culture he/she claims expertise over isn't quite the anthropologist they think they are.

The understanding of an intellectual/theorist may not be wholesome, but is it less valuable than that of someone's based on empirical knowledge? I think not, I think it a lot more useful. That would probably be a longer debate though, do we have the resources to take on that?

I don't think we do. . . however I'll end by saying that I didn't mean to imply a hierarchy of value as such - my intent was to indicate that having (some) intellectual understanding of (a) religion and being able to discuss it does not equate to knowing 'enough' to be deemed 'superior'/better informed than a practitioner (of the non-sheeple variety of course) of that religion. Call it the 'intangible' or 'non-intellectual' element of religion - often the greatest/most important element.

seriously? hahaha, op you are very ignorant
bible addresses those who hear about Christ and refuse him, if you've heard of him and you reject him, he is not gonna force you into heaven, you will live in eternal separation from him since that's what you've always wanted technically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtxr3DowRfc&feature=related

@debosky
A lot depends on the op's intent. Can't say I agree with all of that, but meh
Kudos

debosky:

I agree largely with your comments, but that means you do not agree with Rossike – he expressly asserts that Geography is the primary/sole determinant. Yes political power, sphere of influence, etc. do affect the 'uptake' of a religion, but even in locations where these factors are against Christianity, Christians are still found.

Look, this is common sense. There are no absolutes. Geography is the PRIMARY reason you are a christian. Regardless of the few christians in China, IF YOU WERE BORN IN CHINA, there is less than a 1% statistical chance that you would have even HEARD of Christ, much less being a christian. In Nigeria, the ONLY reason you are a christian is that the European elite at some point 300 years ago decided they required foreign slaves to drive their industrial revolution, owing to their manpower shortages at home. Africa was their preferred source after their attempts to use Indians failed.

They then headed to Africa with their ships, guns ... and bibles. And YOU today are a christian, following their exploits.

So you're not a christian because you 'love God' or because 'Jesus loves you'.

You are a christian SOLELY because your ancestors were conquered by bands of heavily armed, bloodthirsty, ruthless foreign invaders.