Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Census 2011: Mind Your Own - responses to initial questions

The launch of this campaign has elicited a number of questions, to which His Grace now responds:

We have been told that this census will be the last, so there’s no danger of the religion question becoming compulsory.

This is a surprisingly widespread misconception, apparently stemming from an announcement by Jeremy Hunt MP. The National Census is NOT being abolished: merely the inefficient 10-yearly form which is invariably out of date within a year. Government data gathering in the future will be electronic and more frequent. Unless a stand is taken now, this question (and others yet to be conceived) will become mandatory.

There is a danger that if we don't answer this question, it will affect the percentage of Christians and be used to ignore us even more.

At the last census, 72% of the nation professed Christian adherence: it did nothing to halt Parliament’s assault on our liberties. Whether we respond to this question or not, the percentage will change, and so it should. The 2001 figure was manifestly distorted: box-ticking one’s religion is concerned with self-classification which will be as subjective in 2011 as it was in 2001. The basic premise of the whole religion question is flawed.

By not ticking ‘Christian’ you give the impression of being ashamed of your faith. You are denying your baptismal vows and denying Jesus. We need to stand up and be counted.

This is NOT about being ashamed (good grief - imagine, His Grace ashamed!): it is about protesting a limit to the intrusion of the database state. Only by telling the Government to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS can that protest be made. Leaving the question blank is passive assent to being asked.

If Christians - even those only 'culturally Christian' - do not declare themselves, the Government will believe we are a purely secular society (except for Muslims), and act accordingly.

This is like comparing penis size: whoever has the majority is perceived somehow to be ‘winning’. It is a ludicrous assertion. Again, His Grace points out that the secularisation of the UK continues apace: a Christian (overwhelming) majority has not halted it, as the Pope noted in his recent visit. And there is no rationale at all to the Government concluding that by telling them to MIND YOUR OWN that the nation is ‘purely secular’.

I chose not to answer in 2001: that was my protest.

You and 4 million others, who have simply been discounted. Non-response is not a protest: it constitutes passive assent to being asked, and communicates indifference.

I answered ‘Jedi’ in 2001.

And it was all very amusing (and has provided His Grace a plethora of blog posts since). But despite now outnumbering those who profess adherence to Judaism and Sikhism, the Jedi have been completely ignored: there is no ‘Jedi’ tick-box. The campaign was a typically British eccentricity which will doubtless become illegal (on pain of fines) in a few decades. Answering ‘Jedi’ is not a protest: it is tacit support of the state’s right to enquire into personal religious belief.

Loss of privacy doesn’t equate to loss of liberty. Those motivated to conceal invariably have something to hide. If virtually everything is known about everybody the power of information becomes diminished.

It's called targeting. There was a time when it used as the basis for sales and marketing: now it is not infrequently used for social engineering and propaganda purposes. It is outrageous that the state presumes to question people on their sexuality, such that old people in a retirement home are obliged to answer such a question in order that the management can tick the ‘diversity’ box and secure a local authority grant. This began as an option, but compulsion has crept in. It is unacceptable that those who ‘prefer not to say’ are made to think they have ‘something to hide’: and that those gays who prefer to keep the information private tick ‘heterosexual’ for fear of suspicion. This is not data gathering: it is conscience coercion.

Am I right in thinking that refusing to answer the census leads to a fine or imprisonment?

Only the mandatory ones. This question remains optional, but unless a stand is made soon, it will - as sure as night follows day - become mandatory with punitive state action for non-compliance. By ticking ‘Other’ and filling in ‘MIND YOUR OWN’, you are not breaking the law.

I personally find it quite interesting to see the results, and find out just how many people profess to believe in God, etc.

Except that the statistics are inaccurate. Religion is not the same as ethnicity: culture is not creed. As others have said, accurate data is important. But with more than 4 million having left the question blank in 2001, the statistics were skewed from the outset, such that any political decision taken upon the basis of the findings was flawed.

At first glance, it's a census-related privacy campaign. On second, I read it as anti-secularist.

Not remotely. In fact, the BHA were praised at the campaign launch for wanting the data to be more accurate. But their own Census Campaign acknowledges that the question remains flawed, and so the integrity of the resulting data will be insecure.

---------------------------Rolling Questions-------------------------------

Further questions and responses will be added to this post as they arise:

The question is optional and says so in big letters - I think people should answer honestly to give best comparison from last census. Encouraging mass distortion of the data will create more problems.

The optionality has been dealt with: as with questions about sexuality, it is not likely to remain so. But when in 2001 more than 4 million exercised their right not to respond, the validity of the data was already questionable. Since the 2011 question is itself different from that of 2001, there is no meaningful comparison to be made: it is apples and potatos, vulnerable to crass and simplistic (and triumphalistic) interpretation. And it is disingenuous to accuse His Grace of encouraging mass distortion and creating more problems: the problem is with the question itself and the unacceptable level of the state's intrusion.


This really is about privacy. Since the Government has not defined religion (and cannot distinguish it from a ‘philosophy of life’), and His Grace cannot fathom how they can presume to make windows into the souls of men, the question ought not to be asked: it creates more heat than light.

And where is this question leading?

In April 1933, the Hitler regime began a census of all Germans, partly aimed at identifying Jews. In 1937, the Nazi regime ordered another nationwide census. This one was decisive for Hitler’s war preparations and for the Jews it was the final and decisive identification step.

The way things are going in the UK and the EU, it is clear that census data is being used to categorise, profile, apportion funds and limit our freedoms. It needs ‘nipping in the bud’, before it is too late.

Unlike the BHA campaign, there is no pledge to take, no fund-raising appeal, and no ulterior motive. So 'like' the Facebook page and spread the word that this is an opportunity (in the last 10-yearly census) to protest the limits of state intrusion.

Today's invasion of privacy will be tomorrow's loss of liberty. Our freedoms of conscience, religion and association are too precious to entrust to a government database.


Anonymous funambulist said...

Thank you, sir, for a most lucid and erudite exposition of this important matter, and particularly for the things you say in the four closing paragraphs of this post.

No government is ever to be trusted with the guardianship of our freedom - they are all corruptible - and corrupt.

I shall do exactly as you have advised, and thank you once more for this post. I do not always see eye-to-eye with the views you express in your blog, possibly because of my own faith, but there is more that unites us rather than divides us.

4 January 2011 at 12:49  
Anonymous Martin from the North said...

Answering ‘Jedi’ is indeed a protest: it is actual support of the state’s right to enquire into personal religious belief and the individual's right to reply how he or she (or it?) pleases.

4 January 2011 at 13:49  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Martin of the North,

It is not a protest. To answer 'Jedi' is to miss the point; this shouldn't be about deflecting the question but about demonstrating its officiousness.

Answering 'Jedi' is akin to not responding in that it represents nothing more than apathy(as His Grace points out).

It is the distinction between active protest and passive indifference that is key here.

4 January 2011 at 14:13  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Martin from the North*, my apologies.

4 January 2011 at 14:21  
Blogger Demetrius said...

AT one time I saw myself as an Antidisestablishmentarianismist, perhaps I should try it again.

4 January 2011 at 15:01  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I havent quite formulated my full militant attack on why this new sort of goverment by database is so deeply worrying , but I keep working on it.
I keep thinking of Tolkiens "one ring to bind them all" . I then wonder of how these bits of stored and computed activity give unseen powers. Monitoring patterns of life can so easily become excuses to keep certain aspects supressed , alarms muffled . Perhaps the power of spin or nudge lie behind all this knowledge .
Further more what if it is changing the basis of conciousness as it permiates more and more aspects of our lives , and we are mentally having an increasingly surreal internal mental dialogue with no god involved at all.

I just see it as rather subconcious tyranny , with new powers of access to know your life without questioning it , creating certain sorts of people who , as it were, know how to run the big brain for control or profit .

It sometimes even seems like new form of slavery , defining humanity in very obscure way , by its pervasivness and interactions .

How I wish Orwell was was alive to see just that little further on what the logical outcomes will be as its enivitable convergence continues.
No wonder the attention is for a happiness index , it is perhaps under threat of instinction as we are no longer becomming masters of our own lives

4 January 2011 at 17:11  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Not a machine said:

"I haven't quite formulated my full militant attack on why this new sort of government by database is so deeply worrying , but I keep working on it."

Maybe because this census information will be married up to countless other "bits" of information about us on a myriad of government records and computers, all designed to eventually to get the fullest picture of who we are and every conceivable detail about us that the government wishes to retain for its own sinister and undeclared purposes. All it requires is your compliant 'co-operation'
But Cranmer's concluding comment is important:"Our freedoms of conscience, religion and association are too precious to entrust to a government database."

It may be a good idea at some point to ask our MPs under the FOI process, to whom will these details be available, including other departments or police?

4 January 2011 at 17:28  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Graham wood : Its more of a case I cannot quite conceptualise , what all this is doing , you are right about compliance aspects , but that in itself does not make the power of it go away .

Its like being dumbed down until it seems the obvious choice/solution.

The pro lobby see my views as niave , as things are so much more contained and managed .

There is the wierd and noticeable aspect that the young live there lives through the systems without any concept of the social structures before the personal technology , as though its ok to live like this .

It both upgrades and is eternal whilst we remain human , but diminshed by its limits.

Its changing all sorts of previously valued social institutions and interactions

4 January 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Dear Cranmer

What is a 'religion'? A question posed in your initial blog on this.

"Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, ... tend(ing) to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."

Very broad!

Where do human creeds stand?

National Socialim?
Political Zionism?
et al

How many 'religious' systems are there? And what of those which combine with the creeds of man?

These beliefs "... consider a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life."

Gnostism a 'religion'?
Free Masonry - and its various orders?
Buddism - in its various forms?
Hinduism - with it legion of cults and gods?
Religious Zionism?
Christianity - with its cults?
Islam - and its branches?
'New Ageism' - a diverse concoction spawned by who knows who?

Maybe the question should simply be - do you belief in God or man?
Or, failing that, specify all the sub-categories of the worlds belief systems - religious or otherwise.


4 January 2011 at 18:01  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Queen Elizabeth I had no wish to make windows into men’s souls but she was prepared to do just that because of the threat to England from Roman Catholicism.

Four hundred years on, General Sir David Richards says that ‘Islamist militancy’ will ‘pose a threat to the UK for at least 30 years’, and the CIA believes that ‘British Islamist extremists are the greatest threat to US homeland security’.

Faced with a seemingly endless campaign of terrorism inspired by the Holy Qur’an, even liberal do-gooders like Your Grace should understand the need to monitor the community from which the terrorism springs.

4 January 2011 at 18:07  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman; One certainty ,God will not allow religion any where near His redemptive plan for Mankind!

4 January 2011 at 18:12  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus Christ never came to Earth to start a 'new religion'.

Jesus Christ came to restore fallen man to a Holy God.Because sin was a barrier between fallen man and God Jesus came to remove that barrier.

Jesus came that we might have Life, His Life , the Holy Spirit within our human spirit.

Jesus certainly didn`t come and give us a rule book, and say "be good and Follow this" Because He knew fallen man couldn`t do this without the Power of the Holy Spirit.

4 January 2011 at 18:29  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Len you may be correct, however I still have a big problem with this Jesus is God assertion that is so commonly held.


Your Grace; you are in the main part spot on the money, but only as far as you go. Which is never quite far enough.

For there would seem little point in mentioning Nazi Germany if you do not know or don't tell what was very much behind the whole Nazi project. This from before it's reported beginning, to its ever more flourishing existent to this very day.

For Nazi Fascism was never defeated, it just appeared to be so, and then simply changed its main host to Communism and The USA, as far as I can tell.

With reference to Revelation 6 verses 1-8

I cannot write it all down here, however could you please take a little of your time to explain what your personally take is, regarding the above verses?

I take the Ist horse to be the Pope himself, the 2nd to be Communism, the 3rd temporal power, and the 4th The Vatican itself.

I would very much appreciate being proved to be completely miss-guided.

This interpretation was given to me by a very well known ex Jesuit priest. Who claims to have been given this explanation, from a now demised, but then extremely powerful RC Cardinal.

Slightly more on topic

It would appear to me that the questions are flawed from the very start.

However honestly divisive questions alone, never mind the forthcoming results, would undoubtedly lead to violent riots in the streets, or indeed much worse. Therefore it is just as well we are given these dishonestly divisive ones instead.

1. Do you believe yourself to be a REAL Christian, for example a true Bible believer, which is none of the below?

2. Do you believe yourself to be a follower of the ancient Mystery Schools of Babylon, such as a RC, Pagan, Baptist, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, or Freemason, summed up as, a member of any kind of established religion?

3. Do you believe yourself to be all of the above, as well as truly none at the same time, for example, a very confused individual, simply trying their upmost best to fine at least a small part of the truth of the matter, an agnostic?

4. Do you believe yourself to be none of the above, for example, someone who does not give a damn one way or another, a virtually brain dead atheist?

4 January 2011 at 20:08  
Anonymous Watching Them, Watching Us said...

graham wood said...


But Cranmer's concluding comment is important:"Our freedoms of conscience, religion and association are too precious to entrust to a government database."

It may be a good idea at some point to ask our MPs under the FOI process, to whom will these details be available, including other departments or police?

You will not get this via FOIA requests, but you can guess that almost every arm of the government (and many involving foreign governments) could get their tentacles on not just the anonymised statistics produced by the 2011 Census, but also on the core unanonymised data.

This will link , say, your professed religion, with your name, (and those of your family members), home address(es), employment details etc.

# What proof is there that our confidential sensitive personal data will not be shared with the intelligence agencies, the police, the immigration authorities, the tax authorities, foreign governments or private sector companies now that such sharing is exempt from the 2 years in prison penalty under the old Census Act 1920, by virtue of the wide ranging exemptions which were sneaked into the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 section 39. Confidentiality of personal information ?

4 January 2011 at 20:26  
Anonymous Watching Them, Watching Us said...

(1) Subject to this section, personal information held by the Board in relation to the exercise of any of its functions must not be disclosed by--

(a) any member or employee of the Board,

(b) a member of any committee of the Board, or

(c) any other person who has received it directly or indirectly from the Board.


(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure which--

(a) is required or permitted by any enactment,

(b) is required by a Community obligation,

(c) is necessary for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board to exercise any of its functions,

(d) has already lawfully been made available to the public,

(e) is made in pursuance of an order of a court,

(f) is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not in the United Kingdom),

(g) is made, in the interests of national security, to an Intelligence Service,

(h) is made with the consent of the person to whom it relates, or

(i) is made to an approved researcher.

4 January 2011 at 20:28  
Anonymous Watching Them, Watching Us said...

Will this "Mind Your Own ...." campaign and this influential blog, qualify as a "media incident" to be "handled" by Whitehall media manipulators ?

The Office of National Statistics has a 24 hour a day Census media spin hotline, to counter press journalists and people who use "social networks" who are merely "suspected" of "taking a negative line"


2011 Census press and social media "incident" media spin preparations

4 January 2011 at 20:40  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

4 January 2011 18:12

"Mr Eman; One certainty ,God will not allow religion any where near His redemptive plan for Mankind!"

Lets just agree we believe in God -Father, Son and Spirit.

I believe Christ appointed leaders for His Mystical Church and endowed them with authority. Your 'non-denominational' belief is as much a 'religion' as mine.

God Bless.

4 January 2011 at 21:20  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Oh, Your Grace is so right. Well said, and thank you for providing the lead.

When I first met database collectors (25 years or so ago), I wasn't worried: the GI/GO artists were clearly too stupid and too lazy to process all those statistics. When it transpired that they work by 'keywords' - well...

That decontextualizes the info, and frees it up for manipulation. Come to think of it, that - and any form of 'network' - is what global commiedom is about. The problem, and the trap, isn't confined to Britain.

One of the reasons for renewing my US Driver's License is that I can't stand to have the Mark of antiChrist plastered over my face: as it is on the UK license (blue and yellow rag that it is). But, Dear Lord, what we go through to renew a license here! As of 1/1/11 you almost have to complete a census for the purpose.

It gets more like the euSSR every day. Now if I spoke hispanic, had just arrived in a truck full of drugs and firearms, and were clearly descended from a long line of migrant fieldworkers - "Hey. Here's your licence. Don't even go to the tax collector's office for it."

That would be all in a day's business, I guess. And some new hispanic-sounding politicians proclaim that is their target for government: to make it run 'like a business.'

I don't think there's much doubt
the euSSR's UK Agency will sell the data they collect. As well as using it against us in other ways, of course.

Thank you, Your Grace, for recovering the lost post. The new message there seems to be holding:)

4 January 2011 at 23:41  
Blogger Crusader said...

I fought at Monte Cassino - the Battle for Rome - to preserve civilisation.

For what?

Tell the world your faith!

5 January 2011 at 00:44  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I will try and think that one over MrEman scripturally you are correct appointments were made , however if we take the apostles it is more of a communion of love and the willing/enabled.

The question I am perhaps pondering is "spreading the good news" may be quite differnt to having high speed broadband . If I seem to praising monastic life I appologise , but I do not think we will grasp what we are supposed to as we seem to have become mentally very busy .

Lives changed and transformed or mereley nudged according to the gospel of outcome . I appreciate its not really a popular postion as it seems to make money and playboy billionaires , but as we have seen parliament is not going to ask the right questions and I doubt any legislation will have the desired effect .

5 January 2011 at 01:12  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

We have had our differences, and they will more than likely continue, but I think I may feel a slight (very slight) thawing of relations.

My usual habit is to scrawl an expletive on the front cover of this tat and then proceed to tell the tax-payer-funded collector where they can stick their fine.

A question has arisen in the comments as to what constitutes true religion. As ever, the Word of God is sufficient to settle every argument.

'Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.'

James. If the reader requires the chap. and verse, they are either unlearned else unsaved, and would do well to recognise themselves as such.

5 January 2011 at 01:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too, temporarily, came out as a Jedi during the last census to indicate my displeasure about state snooping of my beliefs and disbeliefs. I fear, however, if your Grace's very proper and sensible campaign takes off, we could end up with an official Moslem Majority.

At least, then, Christianity would be seen as a Minority deserving of special protection.

5 January 2011 at 12:58  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

5 January 2011 12:58

Whilst risking the wrath of 'len', 'highetc' and others, why don't we start asking ourselves what the terms "Islam" and "Allah" mean?

Let's think outside the 'historical box' them maybe we can begin a dialogue rather than continuing to throw stones at each other and calling names.

Time to leave the playground behind!.

5 January 2011 at 16:13  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman, are you picking up your toys and going to play elsewhere?.

Why don`t you start asking yourself what deluded means?

5 January 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

len said...
5 January 2011 19:23

"Mr Eman, are you picking up your toys and going to play elsewhere?.

Why don`t you start asking yourself what deluded means?"

Oh how very mature, christian and biblical!!

Is it really me who has a fixed belief that is false and derived from deception?

5 January 2011 at 23:28  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Just in case all this hopping around between blogs overlooks important questions.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if Christians engaged in a proper discussion with Islam? And what forces prevent this?

Mr Eman said...
len said...
5 January 2011 19:46

I do not understand what your question is.
Please re phrase it."

Mr Eman said ...
l5 January 2011 23:47

"It is actually a clear enough question - and one srizels asks repeatedly.

He wants to understand how Jesus, the man, can also be the Son of God, the Christ, and fully God.

Islam whilst worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, does not understand the Hypostatic Union or the Trinitarian nature of God. Neither are clearly stated in scripture but were developed over time by the Catholic Church."

Ever wondered what would happen if Islam did understand and accept? Who or what gets in the way? Islam removed polytheism from Arabia and understandably is suspicious about the Christian message - and all that follows.

Are we repeating Cane and Abel?

6 January 2011 at 00:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anybody who thinks that a national census of population is benign, should read the book, "IBM and the Holocaust", by Edwin Black.

6 January 2011 at 00:38  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman,
Thank you for explaining what srizels meant, you might even be right(for once,just joking )If your assumption is correct (as to what srizels meant by his oft repeated question)

Srizels, The Trinity Is Not A Biblical Belief!

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicaea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity(Catholic variety) was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."
The last word Must be by God;

"Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)

6 January 2011 at 19:04  
Blogger Mr Eman said...


You sir are clearly NOT a

You have rejected a fundamental tenet of the Faith.

6 January 2011 at 23:20  
Blogger Mr Eman said...


Just read your post on an earlier blog where you present a description of the hypostatic union.

Now I'm confused - as must Srizels!

Do you believe God is Father, Son and Spirit; Three in One; a Communal of Eternal Love?

Straight answer please without reams of selective scripture.

Your post is below.

len said...

In Luke 1:30-35 the angel Gabriel appeared before the virgin Mary and said,
"...Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end." And Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God."

Jesus had to be born this way so as to not inherit a sin nature, because with a sin nature he would have been powerless to save anyone!.

Christ possessed two identities, two capacities. Jesus was both God and man. He could act in his capacity as God. He could act in the capacity of man. He could speak as God and he could speak as man. As a man he said, "I thirst." As God he could say to the blind man or to the leper, "I will, be thou clean, " without any reference to being deity. In him were two genders, divine and human. Gender, as used here, does not refer to sexual differences but to differences of class or category of being. He occupied two classes, the only one who ever did. He was God and man, God manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

6 January 2011 19:53

6 January 2011 at 23:30  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman I am not surprised you and srizels are confused.You are clearly following the wrong Gospel.
I suggest you get a Bible and read it.

7 January 2011 at 17:37  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Enema , I suppose you will start cursing me now (anathemas)well do your worst!Or report me to the pope,heaven forbid.
I meant it about reading the Bible though.

7 January 2011 at 17:42  
Anonymous Ade said...

I've thrown mine in the bin, we have open borders, what exactly is the point.

8 January 2011 at 22:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

len said...
Mr Enema , I suppose you will start cursing me now (anathemas)well do your worst!Or report me to the pope,heaven forbid.
I meant it about reading the Bible though.

7 January 2011 17:42

It's not the reading, it's whats in your heart that counts.

9 January 2011 at 22:53  
Blogger andy said...

Another problem with the question - as put - is that it tends to ask whether one is Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, ...

A question about one's religion has suddenly become one about one's membership of a certain section of a religion, but only if one is a Christian.

23 January 2011 at 17:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the bible says about the census (Old testament 1 Chronicles 21:1-28")

1 Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel
7 God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it.
8 Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.”

As it stands Houses have been marked with census number ... what will they mark next??? Will they try to mark our bodies, the temple of God???....

What the future holds according to the Book of Revelation

New Testament Revelation 13:1-16

7And the beast was allowed to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And he was given authority to rule over every tribe and people and language and nation.
8And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.b
9Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.
10Anyone who is destined for prison will be taken to prison. Anyone destined to die by the sword will die by the sword. This means that God’s holy people must endure persecution patiently and remain faithful.
16He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.
17And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name.
18Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.c His number is 666.

Revelation 14
9 Then a third angel followed them, shouting, “Anyone who worships the beast and his statue or who accepts his mark on the forehead or on the hand
10 must drink the wine of God’s anger. It has been poured full strength into God’s cup of wrath. And they will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb.
11 The smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night, for they have worshiped the beast and his statue and have accepted the mark of his name.”
12 This means that God’s holy people must endure persecution patiently, obeying his commands and maintaining their faith in Jesus.

Be wise and make the right choices!

6 May 2011 at 18:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older