[Aggie-agatha]

Thats sounds just about right. I'm sure there are some laws in this country are there because of the Christian faith. And anyways, you don't have to go to church to be considered a Christian! Some Christians prefer to spend time with their family instead of going to church, or have work or something along those lines. Plus god is everywhere no need to go to a church; if you want to speak to god just sit quietly and speak to him yourself. A church is just a pretty building.

When i lived in London i thought that England wasn't a Christian country. Since it was almost 50% Muslims practically in my school.... But now moving away, i notice that in big cities it's hard to see, but if you go to allll the smaller towns and cities here in the UK it's predominantly Christian.

So yeah it's a Christian country!

[Aggie-agatha]

(Original post by WokSz)
But just because they don't practice the religion doesn't automatically mean they aren't.

I think England is built on Christian values but it's important to have a state that's separate from the church as it is now a multi-cultural society.

I agree with this, and also agree on the comment made about how the British think religion should be private.
I agree with that 100%, your relationship with your god is your own business. I don't want to know about your religious habits. I could care less. Don't preach to me, don't force me to listen to you tell me evolution is fake. Just keep it behind closed doors.

[Veggiechic]

The country used to be christian, back in the 60s. There are still lots of churches etc around but I think the influence has been less and less as time has gone on. Sadly.

[azhao]

Most of that proportion are nominal.

[Phugoid]

(Original post by Nativeenglish)
Society is secular, that's why. People still hold religious beliefs, the predominant "belief" being Christianity.

You are right that society is increasingly secular, but the point you make that people still hold Christianity as the predominant religious belief - hmm I question this.

On what basis do I question it? On a couple of basis.

1) When a randomer is stopped in the street and posed the question 'what religion are you?', they do not answer with the truth. By that I mean, they may often give the answer 'Christianity', but they themselves do not meet the criteria for what any sensible person would define as a Christian. They give the answer 'Christianity' much in the same way that if you asked them their star-sign, they would say 'Capricorn', or 'Scorpio'. It doesn't actually MEAN anything to them. I have a star-sign, simply because I am branded with one given my birthdate. I don't, however, believe in astrology, and I certainly don't have the supposed attributes of a Scorpio - well I do, but everyone does, those things are written generically to capture everyone!

My point is this: Most people consider themselves to be Christians on the basis that they were baptised and confirmed, or that their parents were Christians, or that they went to a Christian school, or that they were forced to go to Church for a certain period of their life. But this does not equate to being a Christian. I myself have suffered all of those things but I am far from being Christian. Most people just haven't gotten out of the habit of calling themselves Christians.

2) I think the number of sincere Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Atheists far outnumber the number of sincere Christians in this country.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
Is the state not completely independent of church these days?

(Original post by extn)
Officially, yes.

No, it isn't. Protestantism is still the state religion of this country.

Whilst I generally agree with what Meus saying, I think its very easy to miss the hidden Christian influences in our culture. Christianity has still had an enormous impact on this country and remains far more important than other religions: this is still very much a Christian country.
We still have bishops in the Lords, our national festivals and calendar are based around Christianity, many of our most important buildings are churches, state schools must still have a regular collective act of worship, most people still want to get married and Christened in churches and the Archbishops are still very influential figures in the public eye.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by Phugoid)
2) I think the number of sincere Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Atheists far outnumber the number of sincere Christians in this country.

I don't think thats true. Perhaps there is a greater proportion of sincere Muslims, Jews etc.

But there are thousands of churches up and down the country that have a regular attendance. Pretty much every town and village has a church with a pastor and a regular congregation. You can't say this about any other religion - there aren't well mosques outside of large towns or cities. The number of sincere Christians still far, far, far outnumbers the number of Muslims or whatever.

[Phugoid]

(Original post by WokSz)
But just because they don't practice the religion doesn't automatically mean they aren't.

I think England is built on Christian values but it's important to have a state that's separate from the church as it is now a multi-cultural society.

I don't think England is built on Christian values. For example, I think I would be hard-done by to make a distinction between British moral values and American moral values (excluding most of the South!). And with America being founded relatively recently and by secularists who made damn sure there was no mention of God or religion in the constitution, I think this illustrates that our morals are not built on religion.

I think our values are actually based on secularism. There is no doubt that both America and Britain are a whole lot more moral now than they were 150 years ago, and there's also no doubt that America and Britain were a whole lot more religious back then too! Only with becoming increasingly secular have we become increasingly more moral. In fact, you can see this by looking at current day America. That distinction between the North and South can be made on a basis of religion and morality. In the south immorality is rife, as is Christianity. In the North, they're a lot more secular, and a lot more moral.

[Nativeenglish]

(Original post by Phugoid)
You are right that society is increasingly secular, but the point you make that people still hold Christianity as the predominant religious belief - hmm I question this.

On what basis do I question it? On a couple of basis.

1) When a randomer is stopped in the street and posed the question 'what religion are you?', they do not answer with the truth. By that I mean, they may often give the answer 'Christianity', but they themselves do not meet the criteria for what any sensible person would define as a Christian. They give the answer 'Christianity' much in the same way that if you asked them their star-sign, they would say 'Capricorn', or 'Scorpio'. It doesn't actually MEAN anything to them. I have a star-sign, simply because I am branded with one given my birthdate. I don't, however, believe in astrology, and I certainly don't have the supposed attributes of a Scorpio - well I do, but everyone does, those things are written generically to capture everyone!

My point is this: Most people consider themselves to be Christians on the basis that they were baptised and confirmed, or that their parents were Christians, or that they went to a Christian school, or that they were forced to go to Church for a certain period of their life. But this does not equate to being a Christian. I myself have suffered all of those things but I am far from being Christian. Most people just haven't gotten out of the habit of calling themselves Christians.

2) I think the number of sincere Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Atheists far outnumber the number of sincere Christians in this country.

Perhaps, but people can still be Christian without going to Church, praying etc. I'm technically a Christian, yet I'm not a practising one. I would agree, though, in terms of actual practising faith Muslims (etc) outweigh practising Christians.

[Phugoid]

(Original post by jacketpotato)
I don't think thats true. Perhaps there is a greater proportion of sincere Muslims, Jews etc.

But there are thousands of churches up and down the country that have a regular attendance. Pretty much every town and village has a church with a pastor and a regular congregation. You can't say this about any other religion - there aren't well mosques outside of large towns or cities. The number of sincere Christians still far, far, far outnumbers the number of Muslims or whatever.

Again, you are making the grand assumption that attendance at Church makes you a sincere Christian. It doesn't. An overwhelming majority of any congregation are pensioners who haven't had the will or drive to catch up with the increasing secularism in society, and their attendance at Church is something they continue to maintain out of a habit - a habit that was, in most cases, indoctrinated and forced upon them from a young age by non-secular parents. Two generations from now, there will be very little congregations to speak of, and even as we argue just now there are hundreds of Churches having to be emalgamated to account for the massive drop in church attendance. Other people who attend Church are young people who, in the throes of unexamined tradition are forced to be there by parents, grandparents and school-teachers, hell-bent on delivering them to their confirmation, at which point they may agreeingly forget all about Christianity. This tradition of baptism, first communion and confirmation is just that - tradition. There is no link between them and a genuine belief. Others attend church, fully believing that they are sincere Christians, but as soon as they leave the chapel doors they engage in extremely unchristian activity. In my own city, I know a great many people who attend either the Catholic or Protestant establishments based on what football team they support, as again, tradition tells them that Celtic fans are Catholics and Rangers fans are Protestants.

Attendance at church is almost always linked with allegiance to tradition than it is to the religion itself.

EDIT: Oh, I should add that I recently conducted a survey of my own family, friends and family of friends asking what religion they were, followed by the question of whether or not they had picked up their holy book even once in their life time for just a quick skim. My own survey produced a 100% negative relation between those claiming to be Christian, and those who have read even a smidgeon of the bible in their own time. There was an 80% positive relation in Muslims and a 90% positive relation in Sikhs.

This survey was prompted by informal conversations with other people which also gave the same 100% negative relation in Christians, and this included extremely regular church-goers. How can they rightly be thought of as Christians if they've never read their holy book, or ever been interested in it?

[Phugoid]

(Original post by Nativeenglish)
Perhaps, but people can still be Christian without going to Church, praying etc. I'm technically a Christian, yet I'm not a practising one. I would agree, though, in terms of actual practising faith Muslims (etc) outweigh practising Christians.

And what does it mean to be a non-practicing Christian? Does it mean you are fully aware of the bible and its teachings, but are not interested in them enough to live your life by them?

Religion isn't a sport that you can pick up whenever you have some free time again. It's a philosophy of life based on the belief of a very particular God with a very particular history and a very particular set of commands a criteria you must meet for him to accept you as a follower. That very particular God demands that, to be a Christian, you must keep the Sabbath holy - it's one of his 10 very explicit and very extreme commandments. That very particular God demands that, to be a Christian, you must love him more than your father, your mother, your brother, your sister, your parter, your best friends, yourself and even your own life. That very particular God demands that, to be a Christian, you must give allegiance to him frequently. How can you possibly be a Christian, of any variety, if you quite regularly defy the demands of the God you claim to worship?

[Nativeenglish]

(Original post by Phugoid)
And what does it mean to be a non-practicing Christian? Does it mean you are fully aware of the bible and its teachings, but are not interested in them enough to live your life by them?

To me, being a Christian means believing in a God, or something. I am fully aware of the Bible, but I reject most of its teachings. I reject organised religion, and believe, fundamentally, most of them are dangerous.

(Original post by phugoid)
Religion isn't a sport that you can pick up whenever you have some free time again. It's a philosophy of life based on the belief of a very particular God with a very particular history and a very particular set of commands a criteria you must meet for him to accept you as a follower. That very particular God demands that, to be a Christian, you must keep the Sabbath holy - it's one of his 10 very explicit and very extreme commandments. That very particular God demands that, to be a Christian, you must love him more than your father, your mother, your brother, your sister, your parter, your best friends, yourself and even your own life. That very particular God demands that, to be a Christian, you must give allegiance to him frequently. How can you possibly be a Christian, of any variety, if you quite regularly defy the demands of the God you claim to worship?

I really don't think you're in a position to lecture me about religion. Nobody keeps the Sabbath holy anymore, most people work, etc, and don't have time to go to Church. I think that religion should evolve with culture/time. I don't need to adhere to strict religion rules to believe in a God.

[Elipsis]

Practising Muslims don't quite outweight practising Christians just yet. They will through breeding and immigration though. Although I think the Times expanded on the definitions of what it is to be practising, so instead of needing to go every week they opened it up to once a month and that came out at around 30% of the country I think.

[Asert]

Do we stone non-believers?

Deuteronomy 17
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Do we treat women as inferior objects, to be owned by men?

Genesis 3:16
"...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Exodus 20:17
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Exodus 21:2-4
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."

1 Corinthians 11:3
"...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)"

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

Ephesians 5:22-24
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Do we punish the children for the crimes of the parents?

Exodus 20:5
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

Do we murder homosexuals?

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."



Nah, we don't. We don't follow the holy book so no matter how much we want to call ourselves Christian, we aren't.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Nativeenglish)
To me, being a Christian means believing in a God, or something. I am fully aware of the Bible, but I reject most of its teachings. I reject organised religion, and believe, fundamentally, most of them are dangerous.


I really don't think you're in a position to lecture me about religion. Nobody keeps the Sabbath holy anymore, most people work, etc, and don't have time to go to Church. I think that religion should evolve with culture/time. I don't need to adhere to strict religion rules to believe in a God.

I fail to see why religion should evolve with the culture or time. It is supposed to be a universal set of rules to live your life by regardless of what time frame you're in.

[alenax]

(Original post by Failed123)
It would seem that the majority of opinions in Britain believe religion should be kept out of public.

And why not? I think that's the best way.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by Phugoid)
Again, you are making the grand assumption that attendance at Church makes you a sincere Christian. It doesn't. An overwhelming majority of any congregation are pensioners who haven't had the will or drive to catch up with the increasing secularism in society, and their attendance at Church is something they continue to maintain out of a habit - a habit that was, in most cases, indoctrinated and forced upon them from a young age by non-secular parents. Two generations from now, there will be very little congregations to speak of, and even as we argue just now there are hundreds of Churches having to be emalgamated to account for the massive drop in church attendance. Other people who attend Church are young people who, in the throes of unexamined tradition are forced to be there by parents, grandparents that they are sincere Christians, but as soon as they leave the chapel doors they engage in extremely unchristian activity. In my own city, I know a great many people who attend either the Catholic or Protestant establishments based on what football team they and school-teachers, hell-bent on delivering them to their confirmation, at which point they may agreeingly forget all about Christianity. This tradition of baptism, first communion and confirmation is just that - tradition. There is no link between them and a genuine belief. Others attend church, fully believing support, as again, tradition tells them that Celtic fans are Catholics and Rangers fans are Protestants.

Attendance at church is almost always linked with allegiance to tradition than it is to the religion itself.

EDIT: Oh, I should add that I recently conducted a survey of my own family, friends and family of friends asking what religion they were, followed by the question of whether or not they had picked up their holy book even once in their life time for just a quick skim. My own survey produced a 100% negative relation between those claiming to be Christian, and those who have read even a smidgeon of the bible in their own time. There was an 80% positive relation in Muslims and a 90% positive relation in Sikhs.

This survey was prompted by informal conversations with other people which also gave the same 100% negative relation in Christians, and this included extremely regular church-goers. How can they rightly be thought of as Christians if they've never read their holy book, or ever been interested in it?

You can't claim that an "overwhelming majority" of church congregations are made up largely of pensioners; and then also claim that young people forced to be there by their parents also make up a large proportion. With regards to your confirmation reference, I don't think you know what you are talking about here - confirmation is really not generally considered to be important and not something people generally get forced into.

Attendance to Church is closely linked to culture, of course it is. But this is the same for other religions. How many Muslims do you know who drink alcohol? How many Jewish women do you know that don't follow their religion in telling them to have as many children as possible? I don't think you can fairly assert that a majority of people who go to Church every week and who believe in God aren't Christian because you don't interpret their lifestyle to be Christian. Its mildly ridiculous to talk of only Christians blindly following tradition when this is the key point for all religions.

The fact that you could even find enough Muslims and Sikhs to ask a meaningful survey shows that you are living in a very multicultural area of Britain. Outside of the large cities, you will frankly struggle to find a significant number of Muslims or Sikhs. Most of the rest of the country simply is not like the large cities in that respect. The Muslim population is under 2.5 million; the Christian population is well over 60 - even if a very small proportion of that are sincere Christians, it is still easily enough to outnumber other groups. You have a regular Church-going congregation everywhere - every small town or village has a church. If only a very small number of that congregation are "sincere" Christians, then that is enough - and given the influence of a lot of sincere Christians, I assure you there are plenty about!

[Phugoid]

(Original post by Nativeenglish)
To me, being a Christian means believing in a God, or something. I am fully aware of the Bible, but I reject most of its teachings. I reject organised religion, and believe, fundamentally, most of them are dangerous.

I really don't think you're in a position to lecture me about religion. Nobody keeps the Sabbath holy anymore, most people work, etc, and don't have time to go to Church. I think that religion should evolve with culture/time. I don't need to adhere to strict religion rules to believe in a God.

But being Christian is not about belief in a God. For there are thousands upon thousands of religions which believe in a God, but are not Christian.

Being Christian is about believing a very particular God, Yahweh, who sent his only son, Jesus (Jesus also being Yahweh), and the stories surrounding these two characters are very specific stories which are absolutely paramount to the Christian faith.

I am extremely sorry to inform you, but you are not a Christian. You reject Christian teachings, and you reject religion altogether. I am really really glad that you do, and I have the utmost respect for you for having such sense. But I don't see how you can consider yourself a Christian, or why you would want to?

Please do not think that I was disgraced by your not keeping the Sabbath holy, or not carrying out other traditionally Christian practices. I am a very staunch Atheist and I agree with you that religious tradition is dead, religion in general is dangerous and the teachings of most religions are deserved of objection from every direction.

However, the notion that religion should evolve with time is a bit ridiculous. 100% of the Christian faith is based on a book which claims to be a historical account of events which happened for a fact (okay, we know they didn't actually happen for a fact, but this book claims it did, and in order to be a follower of the religion this book stands for it is necessary that you believe these claims). History does not change, so you cannot expect God's doings in history to change to suit what currently happens in society. Religion is, by definition, something that doesn't change.

I'll draw a political parallel. If you are a left wing liberal in your teens, then in your 40s you decide that your political inclination to the left isn't working for you anymore, you cannot change the definitions of the word 'liberal' to suit your new life, and continue to call yourself liberal. What you do is abandon liberal viewpoints, seek a point on the political spectrum which describes your new view more accurately, and ascribe to that. The word 'liberal' would lose all meaning if it was subject to change. It is a permenant adjective, and if it fails to describe you, then you should cease using it to describe yourself, and move onto more suitable adjectives. The word 'Christian' is the same deal. The adjective 'Christian' is used to describe a person with a very specific set of beliefs, and you do not hold these very specific beliefs. You cannot redefine the word 'Christian' to accommodate your beliefs, or to accommodate the evolution of society. Society, and you, must find more appropriate adjectives. Secular. Atheist. Agnostic. Whatever. But you are not, and Britain is not, Christian.

[Nativeenglish]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I fail to see why religion should evolve with the culture or time. It is supposed to be a universal set of rules to live your life by regardless of what time frame you're in.

A text written that long ago can't seriously be expected to frame somebody's life so rigidly. Unless you're a nun, or something.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Asert)
Do we stone non-believers?

Deuteronomy 17
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Do we treat women as inferior objects, to be owned by men?

Genesis 3:16
"...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Exodus 20:17
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Exodus 21:2-4
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."

1 Corinthians 11:3
"...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)"

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

Ephesians 5:22-24
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Do we punish the children for the crimes of the parents?

Exodus 20:5
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

Do we murder homosexuals?

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."



Nah, we don't. We don't follow the holy book so no matter how much we want to call ourselves Christian, we aren't.

Are you retarded? Seriously? That is from the old testament. Christian's look to the new testament for guidance and when that does not suffice they look to the old testament. Every single one of those verses has been over written by Jesus' emphasis on loving your neighbor, and that is the most important commandment.