Married Couples No Longer in Majority

[Wilchbla]

Two things have destroyed the institution of marriage in America.

1) Pornography did the men in.

2) Feminism did the women in.

[John81]

Two things have destroyed the institution of marriage in America.

1) Pornography did the men in.

2) Feminism did the women in.

I would add that feminism also did men in. Most men caved into feminism, allowed and then accepted it. They allowed their wives, daughters and granddaughters to be influenced by feminism and to live according to feminism.

I don't know if pornography did men in (as a whole), but it certainly was/is a factor and has absolutely done those in who allowed themselves to get hooked on it. Today porn is ill effecting both men and women. I read somewhere that the biggest growth in porn is among women who are now becoming as open to porn as men.

No doubt porn has been, and continues to be, a major factor in the promotion of pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality and other deviant sexual sins. Today porn has taught young women that it's "cool" to be lesbian or bi-sexual or to at least "play" with other women.

If men and women had been raised in accord with Scripture, been born again in Christ, discipled in Christ and set on the path of righteousness, this would not have happened as it has. Christian churches greatly dropped the ball by backing off their solid biblical stands. The pastors who determined to preach a more "pleasing" message rather than a solid biblical sermon share much of the blame. Husbands, dads and granddads who refused or outright rejected their God-given duty to lead their families according to Scripture are much to blame.

Even among professed conservative IFBs it's become common to see pastors wives with unbiblically short hair, wearing suit type outfits, involving themselves in aspects of ministry they ought not, leading their daughters in the same path, etc. This is a shame to the pastor/husband/dad as well as to the wife/mother.

What it all comes down to is the rejection of Christ and His Word in favor of "the pleasures of the world".

America needs to repent, be born again in Christ and to follow Christ.

[JerryNumbers]

The question put forth was valid. We must remember that until about 40 years ago America was 90% white. It was the "white protestant base" that kept America morally grounded to the extent she was.

In looking at this fact we must also take note that the moral decline began when America was still 90% white. White American protestants (consider Baptists included in this for the sake of simplicity) took a liberal turn in the 19th century which greatly accelerated in the 20th century. The vast majority that turned against Christianity or turned Christianity into a liberal, more humanist version, came from that white protestant base. The "Greatest Generation" may have made it through some tough times at home and a World War, but they failed to raise their children for Christ. Many got a taste of the world and clung to it and then raised their children more in accord with materialism and the world than the Bible.

(NOTE: in the above I'm speaking of the major trend, that's not to declare that some Christians were not holding to the faith; there is always a remnant and many of them were sounding warnings in both the 19th and 20th century)

Add to this mix 20 or more million Mexicans who don't want to be Americans, who hold to a liberal form of Catholicism, plus millions of others from around the world who want what they can get from America but don't want to be American, and who also are not Christian, and that has just added more fuel to the fire of decline.

So, one might rightly say that white American protestants, by turning from their roots in the Bible, are responsible for allowing things to go the way they did.

John, I give up, I'm tried of it, even those who have been here quite sometime read into my post, and yours as well, that which was not stated. Its as if they live to pick to pieces anything that is posted.

Perhaps doing so they think it makes them look better.

And before I post this I want to say, I know I fall way short of the glory of God, I would not put myself above anyone that has been here a long time, nor anyone that has been here a short time, its just as if some want to trash whatsoever is posted, reading into their every post that which is not there, I give up!

[HappyChristian]

John, I give up, I'm tried of it, even those who have been here quite sometime read into my post, and yours as well, that which was not stated. Its as if they live to pick to pieces anything that is posted.

Perhaps doing so they think it makes them look better.

And before I post this I want to say, I know I fall way short of the glory of God, I would not put myself above anyone that has been here a long time, nor anyone that has been here a short time, its just as if some want to trash whatsoever is posted, reading into their every post that which is not there, I give up!

Jerry, I'm sorry you feel that way. If you didn't intend to stir up a racial tempest, your wording indicated otherwise. No, I doubt responding to what you posted makes BroMatt think it makes him look better. I know it doesn't me, either. Most likely no-one else, either. Mayhap it's a lesson learned? There are times we all (including you) read posts differently than from what the writer intends and respond accordingly.

[Invicta]

The question put forth was valid. We must remember that until about 40 years ago America was 90% white. It was the "white protestant base" that kept America morally grounded to the extent she was.

600 years ago. America was 100% red.

[John81]

600 years ago. America was 100% red.

600 years ago America didn't exist. As well, the archeological evidence indicates that at least two and perhaps more races inhabited areas of what came to be known as North and South America in pre-Columbian times. It's a myth that American Indians are "native" to the Americas. There is evidence that others were here when the American Indians arrived. The American Indians eventually exterminated and overwhelmed those they encountered and some of them would face something similar in the years ahead.

[John81]

Jerry's question was rather simple. Does anyone think the fact whites no longer have dominance in America has made a difference. That question isn't racist and doesn't imply racism. People could have simply said yes or no, and if they wished, could have commented why they believe the answer is yes or no. There was no need to jump to the conclusion that such a question was racist.

In the study of history the movments of people groups has major impacts. Some of the impacts comes from differing racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc.

One can look to the history of Spain, the Balkans, Mexico, Samaria and various other areas of the world to see clear examples of this.

Why has Christianity sometimes been referred to as "the white man's religion"? Simply because as a racial group, whites were the first to so fully embrace Christianity and then spread the Gospel around the world. Is that fact racist? Hardly! That's just how God determined to do this.

In the book of Acts we see where Paul had wanted to take the Gospel into Asia but the Holy Ghost prevented him. Had the Holy Ghost blocked Paul from going into Europe and opened the way into Asia things would have been different but for His own reasons, God chose not do to it that way.

The term racist has been turned into a bomb to launch intended to stifle discussion and debate regardless of any actual racism. For one to be a racist is for one to declare that one race is superior while other races are inferior. Looking at history fully, which includes how race factors in, isn't racist.

[Pastor Matt]

Why has Christianity sometimes been referred to as "the white man's religion"? Simply because as a racial group, whites were the first to so fully embrace Christianity and then spread the Gospel around the world. Is that fact racist? Hardly! That's just how God determined to do this.

I highly doubt that God was sitting on his thrown and said, "I think I'll choose the whites to spread the gospel".

Jerry got the response that he got because he was asking if the majority of the color of ones skin is causing a moral decline. To that I say a big NO. If the majority of illegals that were coming to America was white, we would still be in moral decline, because it is a heart problem.

[John81]

I highly doubt that God was sitting on his thrown and said, "I think I'll choose the whites to spread the gospel".

Jerry got the response that he got because he was asking if the majority of the color of ones skin is causing a moral decline. To that I say a big NO. If the majority of illegals that were coming to America was white, we would still be in moral decline, because it is a heart problem.

The point is, it doesn't matter why God chose the method he chose, that's the way it has been done. No doubt God did determine the European peoples would be His main method of spreading the Gospel for hundreds of years. Does that mean it's because they were white? Of course not! It doesn't mean the Europeans were any more special than anyone else either; just as God told the Israelites He didn't choose them because of them being special in any way.

If America were being flooded by biblically sound Christians, whether Mexican, white or Japanese, America very well likely would not be in such a state of moral decline.

At one time in history, whites from certain parts of the world took Christianity with them and brought hope to the people there. It was whites doing it to the glory of God but it was because of Christ in them, not the genetic factors that made them white.

Today when Arabs flood an area they bring Islam with them. They attack Christianity and seek to replace biblically based laws with their own. That doesn't make it racist to notice this is what Arabs bring about and it's not because of their genetic factors. It's just how it is. Look back just 40 some years ago and at that time and previously America was known as a "white Christian nation". Was that racist? No, just a statement.

[Wilchbla]

I don't think God intentional chose the white race primarily to spread the gospel. It just turned out that way because of the way the gospel spread out of Israel. Although there is this verse:

Acts 16:6- Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

[HappyChristian]

Paul wasn't white. Neither were any of the disciples. They were semitic, which is considered asian....

[no name joe]

Why has Christianity sometimes been referred to as "the white man's religion"? Simply because as a racial group, whites were the first to so fully embrace Christianity and then spread the Gospel around the world. Is that fact racist? Hardly! That's just how God determined to do this.

Ummmmm......have you read Acts? The first to embrace Christianity were Jews living in the Roman Empire.....the Day of Pentecost????? After that, Paul, a Jew, took the gospel to the Gentiles. Given the area, he was in and travelled to in his missionary journyes, the first Christians were Jewish and them probably Middle Eastern. He travelled extensively in Asia Minor. All early Christians were in the Roman Empire, and as persecuted by the Nero and other emporors, Christianity spread into East Africa and South Asia. Do you think white people lived in those regions? Ummmm....No.

Christianity did not reach Europe, such as Britain or Spain until the 6th century. So your assertion is entirely misplaced. Perhaps some white supremacy group made up the "hisotry" that you cite to make themselves superior to other races, but it is entirely inaccurate.

You wonder why the racial issue has come up...you brought it up and the above statement comes off as racist by claiming white people were the first to embrace Christiainaity when in fact that is nto the case. The earliest Christian believers looked much more like an Arab person does today than they would have looked like a white man.

[BlessedChristianlady8]

If God only wanted one race which is white then he would've created us all the same color. However, we are all different colors. There are both ungodly and Godly people in each race.

To Answer your Question do I feel that whites are going away slow because white woman is always preventing pregnancy and say they don't want anymore. I see this on every Christian board and boards I am . However, I am not being a racist about this so I will not continue.

[Wilchbla]

Christianity did not reach Europe, such as Britain or Spain until the 6th century. So your assertion is entirely misplaced. Perhaps some white supremacy group made up the "hisotry" that you cite to make themselves superior to other races, but it is entirely inaccurate.

You wonder why the racial issue has come up...you brought it up and the above statement comes off as racist by claiming white people were the first to embrace Christiainaity when in fact that is nto the case. The earliest Christian believers looked much more like an Arab person does today than they would have looked like a white man.

Christianity was in Spain much early than the 6th century. Romans 15:24,28

And you don't know what the earliest Christians looked like.

[JerryNumbers]

Jerry's question was rather simple. Does anyone think the fact whites no longer have dominance in America has made a difference. That question isn't racist and doesn't imply racism. People could have simply said yes or no, and if they wished, could have commented why they believe the answer is yes or no. There was no need to jump to the conclusion that such a question was racist.

In the study of history the movments of people groups has major impacts. Some of the impacts comes from differing racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc.

One can look to the history of Spain, the Balkans, Mexico, Samaria and various other areas of the world to see clear examples of this.

Why has Christianity sometimes been referred to as "the white man's religion"? Simply because as a racial group, whites were the first to so fully embrace Christianity and then spread the Gospel around the world. Is that fact racist? Hardly! That's just how God determined to do this.

In the book of Acts we see where Paul had wanted to take the Gospel into Asia but the Holy Ghost prevented him. Had the Holy Ghost blocked Paul from going into Europe and opened the way into Asia things would have been different but for His own reasons, God chose not do to it that way.

The term racist has been turned into a bomb to launch intended to stifle discussion and debate regardless of any actual racism. For one to be a racist is for one to declare that one race is superior while other races are inferior. Looking at history fully, which includes how race factors in, isn't racist.

Your right John, yet many do not see it that way. They look for raciest thoughts, comments, anywhere, and everywhere, trying to turn that which is not raciest into raciest thoughts, its about tearing down.

John, I should have known better than to ask such a question, I should have know where some members mind would go having read many of their past post. But yet, being as we are suppose to be among Christians, I hope that no one would look at it that way.

Yet like I said, I give up on some.