Was Christianity objectively defeated?

I know it could possibly ruin religion for people and it is not at all my intention with this topic, but I just find myself wondering about topics like this despite my own inclinations towards beholding some type of faint difficult and hard to denounce faith in itself I still find myself experiencing thoughts like this.

Basically I have come to realize that most of our emotions and mental halves could be split into two separate halves or categories, which has been done before. One thing that helps explain or properly understand this perhaps is the concept of Ying and Yang to which it is very much alike, also, in terms of what I am trying to explain. This revelation and realization has kind of startled me, but more on this topic, my doubts and apprehensions with Christianity began to slip and falter and I started to wonder if perhaps with the imminence and undeniable popularity but also preference for instead eastern philosophies to which self help gurus like Eckhart Tolle can owe credit largely for behind his ideas and mindfulness exercises I started to wonder largely if Christianity was kind of a thing of the past and in some way had been objectively defeated somehow.

This came on like I said, with the realization and existence that most of our thoughts and experiences could be split and put into two separate halves and that mindfulness originating from eastern philosophy holds such preference in present society and the world. It just seems like generally it is taken as truth and fact that we are simply facets and the outcome of not only our ego but the present thoughts that form and create the basis for that ego, which is basically just this collection and basis for thoughts that form our identity.

Enlightenment has taken precedence and seemingly won in our post-modern transcendence supposedly tech world we live in. I resented denied and resisted this for years, I couldn't stand it. I had spent time mediating and experienced what they call enlightenment but it just wasn't for me. I realized that you know, I wasn't a communist and that I liked having a unique identity, and owning and buying things and also being productive and doing productive things and having money. But still, I have recently seen or caught glimpses perhaps of why this has come to be so, and I wondered if perhaps if it was because Christianity is not objectively accurate somehow, like it had become defeated in such a way possibly, was that what it was?

When you realize or see that you know, most of our thoughts and ideas can be separated into two halves, I wonder then you know like, can you be a Christian anymore?

Not sure what two separate halves you mean, but the Bible talks plenty about how a christian has freshly tendencies they would do well to avoid, and spiritual tendencies they’d do well to practice. Duality is present in Christian teaching also. Not sure what your question really is

I will get back to you later I am kind of busy this is like a difficult to explain topic if you are serious.

I just mean like, has Christianity been replaced by this preference for ideas and belief systems that first originally were inspired and stemmed from Eastern spiritual and philosophy practices? it feels like there is a preference in our post modern society, in general I have experienced this really confounding kind of like anti-intellectualism in many facets of life and society in regular places, no one has time really for like philosophy or undogmatic thinking practices.

It just seems like mindfulness and anti-intellectualism has become this dominate kind of practice and preference mentally and spiritually that has come to placate the masses and I do not see Christianity in favor as much as a result and like, I have just come to think like I said, maybe due to me realizing that you know you can actually (giving credence to mindfulness practices that, you know there is some truth to them perhaps objectively some how) and by saying and inferring that I mean among and in intellectual you know, circles and the like.

saying that all thoughts and feelings can be deduced and placed into two separate halves is very difficult to explain, but I do not want to go further as well because like it is kind of offensive or taboo to speak about openly and would rather not.

Okay, the two separate halves thing, it is in my opinion that you could almost separate most thoughts and feelings into two opposing and equal halves like the Ying and Yang which I think generally as far as Eastern philosophy is concerned and Buddhist, Taoist taken and associated with the Ying and Yang, this is what they are supposed to mean, if that makes any sense and in saying that I wonder if perhaps insofar as intellectual circles were concerned this is how Christianity was defeated perhaps (kind of if it was)

But what I mean further is that along with mindfulness philosophy, there is cognitive behavioural therapy that coincides and has taken influence from said Eastern philosophy of mindfulness as well and it postulates that thought basically has the biggest influence and largest effect on our general well being and feelings so to control your feelings you have to change and become aware of your thought patterns.

Well, there are two different ways of doing this, and that is what I mean by separate halves and that is why I did not really like or subscribe to this mindfulness and cognitive behavioural therapy mass dogma and preferences being forced on me whenever I had curious thoughts and inclinations. It is because as I have come to realize, there are different attitudes and emotions you can illicit by controlling your thoughts and feelings but generally they only really go into two separate directions, two separate halves, like Ying and Yang.

It goes deeper then that, it is basically how feelings and emotions and what are thoughts are telling or urging us for all the time. But it doesn't come without a hitch for me. So while you can separate them all into two halves, you can't take a person and separate every individual into two separate halves which is where Christianity comes in for me still and has imminence, I just don't see how altogether or how it fits into the pieces.

The concept of faith being defeated objectively is an oxymoron.

@teenspirit: I would say Christianity as a whole is being abandoned en masse for sure. That’s not to say most people are abandoning it for a Taoist perspective, although I’m sure some are. People are flocking to all sorts of beliefs from Christianity, in my experience mostly atheism.

But the reason this is happening I believe is because of the hypocrisy and failure to teach that’s prevalent among most churches today. Lots of churches have become permissive and relaxed in their morals, a lot of churches insist on taking collections of large sums of money, a lot of pastors are acting wild. Most don’t even encourage people to read the Bible for themselves. Because of this sadly many view the issue is with Christianity and not with the person who’s role it is to share the message with them.

This actually encourages me, because the Bible talks about how the Christian congregation would become split and many would come into Christianity with false ideas and only a small few would actually be practicing true Christianity. It tells me Bible prophecy is real, because this has been predicted to happen.

As time goes on, you’re likely to see this more. More and more, the love people once had for Jesus and Christianity will cool off.

Read all of that, not sure what the OP means.

I can read a lot of confusion from this post. Although you claim to have been in some way involved in Christianity, you probably never were actually Christian. You seem to think of Christianity as more an inanimate object. However, as a true Christian, Christianity is alive, reflexive, and interactive; Christianity will not just go away from you, as you're bought with a price and sealed with the Eternal Seal of Salvation. Thus, you should be experiencing the promises in the New Testament. But, you have to be able to deeply perceive and recognize those promises as they occur, when the promises from the New Testament are being realized.

I've always been a Christian. I've always been attending church, since I gained awareness of my surroundings. I've always believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, my sophistication had to develop over time. So, initially speaking, I perceived myself as usually experiencing bad luck. But, then, certain actions here and there made me start to realize that I should start confessing to God and taking my relationship with Him more seriously. Over time, until pretty recently, as a matter of fact, I realized that I was being chastened by God, as I was required to keep God in the center of my life by taking Him seriously. But, this demonstrates that God considers me apart of His flock. So, God was taking active measures with me to keep me saved or, based on the type of person that I really am, as known by God, to bring forth the required level of seriousness and respect and gratitude for my having received my eternal salvation, thanks to the Work and Blood of Jesus. But, this wouldn't have happened for me and to me, had I not been a true Christian.

Thus, your experience seems to suggest that God clearly didn't interact with you and your life, based on the way that you're describing things. The New Testament explains the differences in treatment with such items as the Parable of the Sower and God's warning and promise that you would be chastened, if He considers you a part of His flock and a Christian. Thus, based on my experiences I'd suggest that you give it another shot for your own sake more than anything else; it's your own eternal salvation that's at stake and time is of the essence. Do not take steps that are going to actually make it more difficult for you to actually believe the Gospel of Jesus which is required for your eternal salvation, which appears to be what you're doing to yourself; it appears that you're brainwashing yourself in lots of material that's then going to dull your keenness of awareness to such a level that you then might be unable to believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, as an atonement for our sins. Key Scriptures to take into immediate consideration are John 3:14-16, John 6:40, and Romans 10.

And, based on the actual statics, Christianity clearly isn't in any decline, at least overall speaking, that is, it's on the rise; your belief that it might be is only the product of the information that you've decided to believe about it and keep track of and read.

@teenspirit You seem like an open minded person so I'll try and give an equally as open minded response (although my opinion on this subject is quite obvious)

Can our personalities be split into two separate classifications like Ying and Yang? - Answer is no. Our emotions are from years of evolution and to the very core of our emotions it comes down to I'd say these three categories "Reproduction" And "Survival" "Social" Reproduction would have feelings such as love, survival such as fear, in social feelings like envy and compassion. There's likely more, but those are three which go against the Ying and Yang idea being that they one, don't go against each other and two, there's more than two. Well your idea makes since, it's more on the mental philosophical side than observably and objectively correct side which is just not how my brain thinks.

Now for the big one. Is Christianity objectively false? - Well, Christianity goes against many ideas with substantial pieces of evidence like evolution which I referenced in the first question. And many of it's ideas have been disproven already. Though it has answers for things that science can't explain, the answers are rather bluntly terrible. Now this is quite a big one as most of the world will disagree with what I just said here whether or not they can prove it (and trust me I mean WHETHER OR NOT they can prove it, they will go against what I said) and I'd be happy to discuss it further with you.

And lastly, there are many people who where Christians and for years debated with themselves on whether or not how they thought the world works is actually true. To really come out of religion you have to realize the world is completely different that how you thought it was (I didn't have to go through this) but I can understand how the idea of that is scary; and why it takes so long for people to remove themselves from theism.

side note, sorry if I read into your thread the wrong way, than everything I said is irrelevant

@dshipp17 My god will you stop? He never claimed that Christians are an inanimate object. And secondly, people who are on the fence or left Christianity where actually Christians. It doesn't seem fair to say someone was never Christian if they devoted years of their life to practicing it. People who start to become disillusioned aren't confused; you think they are because if they have a valid reason to disbelieve Christianity than that means you could potentially be wrong. And your fake relationship with god is to precious to go of. Sorry, but I've tried talking to you kindly in the past and your where INCREDIBLY ignorant to everything I was saying and kept changing subject instead of confronting what I told you. Also, you discredited someone because they started to realize something, you can't dehumanize people like that. And your defense for doing so is claiming he dehumanized you despite never doing so.

I guess?

I am not following the OPs argument. Why would Christianity be invalidated by Eastern Religions. Christianity has deep roots in Judaism - an Eastern religion. The basic claims of Christianity deal with who Jesus is, his death, and resurrection. How would those be invalidated by Eastern thought?

@just_sayin: Well if were referring to Judaism, then Ig the OP means that the Jews dont believe in Jesus, thus getting invalidating?

I wish people would stop confusing opinion with fact. The OP expresses an opinion. Not a fact.

“My god will you stop? He never claimed that Christians are an inanimate object.”

I didn't say that he considered Christians inanimate objects and, no, I will not stop; however, you should stop spreading various forms of misinformation about Christianity, where you clearly are foreclosed to actually learning about Christianity. My task is to spread the Gospel so that people have opportunities to receive their eternal salvation.

“And secondly, people who are on the fence or left Christianity where actually Christians.”

like, what, you're telling me what Christianity is, as someone who doesn't know many of the first things about Christianity and ignoring sensible suggestions, at the same time? No, that just simply isn't correct; God shows the world who He considers Christians; someone claiming to be Christian doesn't actually make them Christians; signs from God, as an extension of the promises from the New Testament demonstrates who's a Christian. When someone is a Christian, they will be receiving the promises of the New Testament and one sign and promise is being chastened. This is key to our confirmation in what we believe and that it is real.

“It doesn't seem fair to say someone was never Christian if they devoted years of their life to practicing it.”

It's not a matter of being fair, it's a matter of being correct. Someone calling themselves a Christian for years doesn't make anyone a Christian; it's can only something like a hollow public display which the New Testament then addresses (e.g. sincerity actually leads to becoming truly Christian, as demonstrated by God's actions in that person's life, which is described in the New Testament); plus, he never said anything so specific; he didn't claim that he'd devoted years of his life to Christianity; that's just what you tried to insert into the discussion; he just said he had some involvement with it, if that; I was giving him the benefit of the doubt; honestly, I don't know what involvement he had, but it couldn't not have been much. The New Testament provides a very precise and specific formula for your eternal salvation.

“People who start to become disillusioned aren't confused; you think they are because if they have a valid reason to disbelieve Christianity than that means you could potentially be wrong.”

No, I couldn't potentially be wrong, because I've experienced the promises described in the New Testament along many others of us true Christians; and, the New Testament explains to us and helps us understand the differences in treatment. The New Testament is what provides the proper context for our understanding. The New Testament and others, such as myself, and the text that I provided to him, explains what he should do to then actually become Christian. I'm not potentially wrong, because you and he simply don't understand; I've explained it: the New Testament tells us that a sign of true Christianity is being chastened by God. And, based on his words, as I explained, it's because God isn't interacting or couldn't have been interacting with him, as being a true Christian is a requirement to then be chastened by God.

“And your fake relationship with god is to precious to go of.”

I laugh at you here. My relationship with God is real, as God's chastening me is the sign of it. You just simply couldn't not understand, largely because you're stepping on your own feet.

“Sorry, but I've tried talking to you kindly in the past and your where INCREDIBLY ignorant to everything I was saying and kept changing subject instead of confronting what I told you.”

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I responded to you and you didn't respond back on several occasions. But, you respond to others who you appear to be winning the discussion with, due to a less sophisticated understanding. It's just that basic. Believe me, I don't feel threatened or disappointed in Christianity because of what you say; I just read and then understand you, but, it's up to you to decide to grow past yourself and expand your knowledge.

“And your defense for doing so is claiming he dehumanized you despite never doing so.”

I just explained to him why he's experiencing what he experienced. However, it can read as harsh, but, believe me, I was being as gentle as possible; I explained what's like his circumstances and then provided him with a solution, I didn't just deconstruct him and leave at that, I left him with a fix. It was partly in the way that he took his lack of experience and then tried to paintbrush all Christians, basically reducing us to his level of understanding and somewhere below.

“Now for the big one. Is Christianity objectively false? - Well, Christianity goes against many ideas with substantial pieces of evidence like evolution which I referenced in the first question. And many of it's ideas have been disproven already. Though it has answers for things that science can't explain, the answers are rather bluntly terrible. Now this is quite a big one as most of the world will disagree with what I just said here whether or not they can prove it (and trust me I mean WHETHER OR NOT they can prove it, they will go against what I said) and I'd be happy to discuss it further with you.”

People are disagreeing, because you're spreading misinformation; and, based on that misinformation, you aren't aware of that fact that there isn't actually any “substantial pieces of evidence” disproving Christianity. This is just your opinion and what you want to believe, as you've avoided taking the advise of others to read about things that you clearly don't know in relation to Christianity. There's volumes of information addressing the topics that you raise and that show that rebutted information still remains posted without reference to the information debunking these claims. A poster has repeatedly rebutted you in another thread about evolution and creation, but, you won't just go and get informed about these things. And, the rebutted information clearly hasn't disproved Christianity; such is a total exaggeration that's repeatedly passed around, when it just isn't correct beyond an exaggeration, at the very best. And, as my text explains, it' only human instinct to require confirmation; it's this confirmation that then keeps Christianity thriving and growing despite the continuous spread of misinformation such as this text.

“And lastly, there are many people who where Christians and for years debated with themselves on whether or not how they thought the world works is actually true. To really come out of religion you have to realize the world is completely different that how you thought it was (I didn't have to go through this) but I can understand how the idea of that is scary; and why it takes so long for people to remove themselves from theism.”

This just isn't true, as confirmation is what drives people to believe what they believe; Christianity is entirely consistent with what we see; you just have to listen to advise from others and be willing to listen and learn.

@dshipp17 Oh you just don't get it do you? You can't except that people who left your faith where actually a part of it. You can't accept that because if someone has any valid reason to leave it means gods "presence" isn't obvious to all believers. And if that's the case, then the bible got something wrong. And if it did in fact get something wrong, don't you think it could have gotten other things wrong? That's the problem, you're willing to discredit people because they don't fit your view of the world. You call me closed minded but you literally said "I couldn't potentially be wrong". Now, please remind of the time I stopped responding to you because I'd love to continue that debate. And lastly, I did mis read your comment. I thought you said Christians not Christianity. BUT, the fact you think Christianity is a living thing is even more absurd.

Many users (myself included) don't even know what he's trying to convey. I'm more perplexed than anything else right now.

@dshipp17 Almost didn't notice your second post. A jeez thanks for the laugh. You talking about Debunker? Cause he couldn't refute any of my points. I gave him a paradox and his response? The rock can't be more omnipotent then god. That wasn't even the what the question asked. And besides that, he tried claiming humans can't bread with apes (which is objectively false, it's a bad idea but you can do it) made claims that went against things he said either previously, or afterwards. Dude couldn't get his arguments straight. And as for not taking advice, that's a funny thing to call it. Misinformation, advice. Now I'm not some genius but last I checked advice and misinformation are two completely different things. And lastly, for your final point, you failed to prove anything. A religion completely based on what we see aligns with what we see. So I'm admitting your right, what could be the problem? What about this makes you wrong? Well I'll tell you what, that's on a surface level. As soon as you look into things at a deeper level, that thread, that holy thread of explanations with the bible and god and Jesus, it starts to unravel. It turns out the universe is run by an ego maniac. Like seriously, on surface level god is ridiculous. And it becomes more apparent the closer you look into it. Now, before you bring up some scholarly Christian stuff, perhaps take a second to realize that your source is biased and there for has no reason to be brought up in an argument. Ok, you done thanks. Oh and side note, you'd be surprised by how much I know. I know more about Christianity than most Christians so you saying I don't know about this stuff is amusing, very very amusing. Now go on, I'm looking forward to your response. Oh an remember, no full length essays I have a life to live.

I thought the title made no sense but the post doesn't make sense either, and I think that's because it's badly written. Not to be rude, but take this paragraph:

Basically I have come to realize that most of our emotions and mental halves could be split into two separate halves or categories, which has been done before. One thing that helps explain or properly understand this perhaps is the concept of Ying and Yang to which it is very much alike, also, in terms of what I am trying to explain. This revelation and realization has kind of startled me, but more on this topic, my doubts and apprehensions with Christianity began to slip and falter and I started to wonder if perhaps with the imminence and undeniable popularity but also preference for instead eastern philosophies to which self help gurus like Eckhart Tolle can owe credit largely for behind his ideas and mindfulness exercises I started to wonder largely if Christianity was kind of a thing of the past and in some way had been objectively defeated somehow.

It's written so clumsily, it's hard to even understand what it was meant to convey. And no, it's not because the message is so deep. Take for example this sentence:

But still, I have recently seen or caught glimpses perhaps of why this has come to be so, and I wondered if perhaps if it was because Christianity is not objectively accurate somehow, like it had become defeated in such a way possibly, was that what it was?

This could easily be written to say:

Still I have recently seen why this has come to be, and I wondered if it was because Christianity is not objectively accurate, like it had become defeated in way, was that what it was?

Same exact sentiment with the fluff cut out, so it kind of reads like a kid who read Nietzsche once or spent time on Reddit's philosophy subs. No offense, again, but when you write something so provocative and dramatic it needs to have more substance than this does.

I already critiqued this writing style, but also uyou can answer this objectively:

I just mean like, has Christianity been replaced by this preference for ideas and belief systems that first originally were inspired and stemmed from Eastern spiritual and philosophy practices?

Assuming you mean mindfulness practices like meditation:

The use of meditation increased more than threefold from 4.1% in 2012 to 14.2% in 2017.

Versus:

Seven in ten Americans (70%) identify as Christian, including more than four in ten who identify as white Christian and more than one-quarter who identify as Christian of color.

https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/

Also the whole "dualism" shtick is a bit odd since Descartes popularized the concept in philosophy and was a devout Catholic.

“Oh you just don't get it do you?”

Well, if you read and then understood what I read, then you'd know that I clearly did get what they were trying to say (e.g. I experienced this, so then this; I then explained why the conclusions drawn just aren't correct, where you can then get why the subjects aren't inanimate objects, but a Decider is involved; kind of like someone drawing conclusions about all men or women, after a few interactions with the people from the opposite gender; except God is absolutely correct Judge of character, given what He knows about the person by comparison).

“You can't except that people who left your faith where actually a part of it.”

As explained in the text that you're purportedly responding, the person wasn't actually apart of it in the same way as someone who's actually apart of it (e.g. based on a sincere Judgment of character and the actual aim of said individual, God determines who's a true Christian; but, at the same time, God keeps the breath of life or spirit within said individual to allow them to reach the required level of maturity to then actually become apart of Christianity which is far in excess of just a faith, if people evaluate things, after receiving some form of confirmation). And, I'm not accepting a decision without a fight, as I want said individual to avoid a certain fate, where my efforts is guided by my empathetic nature and character, meaning, I deeply care about helping this person avoid a certain fate, when it's as easy as reflecting over Scriptures such as John 3:14-18, John 6:40, and Romans 10; I'm very happy and extremely grateful that God is providing confirmatory signs that I have the Eternal Seal of Salvation and have been rescued from that fate, thanks to the Work and Blood of Jesus.

“You can't accept that because if someone has any valid reason to leave it means gods "presence" isn't obvious to all believers.”

It's not a matter of accepting, it's a matter of what's correct and then helping to dispel information from someone who clearly wasn't understanding, where I clearly explained how to correctly understand (e.g. it involved this person taking experiences and then generalizing about everyone within Christianity, when such couldn't be further from the truth, where the experiences are all so individual, specific in nature; basically, because my experience was different and because I'm aided by God, as a result, I can then provide information to help remove this individual from incorrect conclusions for their betterment, presuming a willingness in them to listen; that would clearly explain why my approach to the poster needs to be different from my approach to you, as you're so consumed with something, that you're shielding yourself from even a prospect of understanding; that's something that you really need to correct before the breath of life leaves you, where the quoted Scriptures is the rescuing device for you; simply taking a few moments to then get rescued).

“And if that's the case, then the bible got something wrong. And if it did in fact get something wrong, don't you think it could have gotten other things wrong?”

Clearly I couldn't accept that, because I'm clearly explaining how my experiences have actively demonstrated to me that the promises in the New Testament are solid and ironclad, as I'm reaping and enjoying those promises, where there's a Decider involved, as opposed to say a battery being involved, instead. Basically, you're not listening to my experiences and demonstrating that you're not coming at this objectively, as this has been repeated to you in a repetitive nature, yet you still won't just listen and then be willing to expand your knowledge.

“That's the problem, you're willing to discredit people because they don't fit your view of the world.”

I'm not discrediting him because of merely a worldview, I'm discrediting him with objective reasoning apart from just myself and a worldview; I'm describing objective evidence of the promises of the New Testament as a basis for why the conclusions that he's reached are simply incorrect, as it involved him claiming, in a very generalized way, how Christianity operates and exists, which isn't correct. And I did this to help people avoid a horrible fate in place of a pleasant fate, where it requires the correct understanding and conclusions about something; it's being responsible, as well as defensive.

“You call me closed minded but you literally said "I couldn't potentially be wrong".”

Basically, I'm describing personal experiences, while you're generalizing from the perspective of less than a half hearted effort into Christianity, so, sure, you're showing yourself to be close minded and the two just couldn't be the same (e.g. you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong about something that I personally experience on a recurring basis, in essence, where I can relate that to a source that provides context, the New Testament of the Bible, as well as a large number of other people; thus, such is very unlikely to be a misunderstanding and mistake of mine; basically, I see you as wanting to throw everything in reality away so that a Stars Wars universe can be realized for yourself; God brought me through a similar take through the chastening process; not gets me as excited to go back to school for my PhD in physics to learn about light speed and report on it; it was this excited that jolted such an excitable level within me that I couldn't help but get As, while going through my physics major, especially when I studied topics apart from classical mechanics).

“BUT, the fact you think Christianity is a living thing is even more absurd.”

I only go by experiences and thus, objective reasoning based on those experiences; personal experiences is also apart of science (e.g. that's what I'm doing in the lab, as opposed to just theoretical physics or calculating the weights, before I do a chemical analysis as a government employee in preparation to defend our findings in court, should the people we're regulating decide that they want to object).

I mean, technically wouldn't Christianity be an Eastern religion? It began in the same region as Judaism and Islam. Yes, it spread to Europe after that, but I'm not sure that changes things? In fact, the Eastern Orthodox segments of Christianity (in a blanket sense) have a claim to the most pure/unadultered Christian practices going back to the beginning of Christianity. Maybe a question of semantics, idk.

@dshipp17 Looking through what you said, it boils down to assuming everything you say is fact, which in itself is wrong. But is the basic building block for you argument, which means I would have to prove that wrong to continue to the topic at hand. And I'm not saying you don't get the op's post. I'm saying you have little grasp on reality. Let me tell you something, it's a cold hard world where everything and everyone is insignificant and we have no objective purpose given to us by a higher power. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be good people; we should be good people because that's what runs a society. Without good people we'd be a mess and a survival of the fittest situation. So there's a reason to be god but it's not god. Oh and, personal experience isn't a god measure, being all humans beings have a little something called conformation bias, you know so like good luck is a sign of god in your eyes.

Alright @Steve40L,

You obviously had a Spider-Man comic book tucked into your reading material during bible study class. Your lack of religious exposure shines through as much as other poster's lack of scientific exposure. It's called "Faith" for a reason.

If someone gets comfort believing, there is no harm in letting them have it. If people want to do good in the name of their god, let them. At least good is being done.

Seems like you moved over here from another board to argue for the sake of arguing.

You're smart. Work on your spelling and grammar so other posters take you more seriously and in general, find a better use of your time.

Depends on how you define Christianity OP, many Religions tend to be so resilient... well for a few reasons, but one is adaptability/borrowing. What about your more recent contemplations are at odds with Christianity as you define and view it?

For transparency sake I am not a Christian, also I think its great you are thinking and contemplating such ideas, but Religions tend to borrow from each other, and adapt, and borrow and fold in new ideas/old idea as well, from different sources, like philosophy/science. Like certain modern Religions (or sects) fold in scientific ideas, which can help them stay compatible and fresh and likelier to survive, than sects that don't. Then you also have to factor in how we as humans, experience, and attempt to articulate experiences and ideas, especially those of a more abstract nature. Spirituality and religious beliefs have existed for a long long time, before our more modern understandings of "West and East" or the connotations they might carry.

What a fun topic.

“And besides that, he tried claiming humans can't bread with apes (which is objectively false, it's a bad idea but you can do it) made claims that went against things he said either previously, or afterwards.”

Well, I know of no case of human/primate hybrids. Although a perverse thought, do you have any cases of human/primate hybrids in existence? But, I have heard of planned attempts, but, to my knowledge, there are no successfully examples of such; wouldn't such hybrids have been all over the place by now?

“And as for not taking advice, that's a funny thing to call it. Misinformation, advice. Now I'm not some genius but last I checked advice and misinformation are two completely different things.”

Given that you didn't go as directed, how are you calling any of his references misinformation? Such displays your biased disposition against finding information that refutes what you prefer to believe in favor of real reality and objective fact, specifically concerning his perspective of things.

“A religion completely based on what we see aligns with what we see. So I'm admitting your right, what could be the problem? What about this makes you wrong?”

I'm not so sure that this could be answered for you, because I'm not convinced that you've actually listen to and heard the arguments for my position on the matter, where you're partly being handicapped to see your preexisting biases confirmed so that you can left away with your current biases after having left people seeing things as you claim; this just isn't an object approach. As I previously pointed out, the New Testament says that if you hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, believe that He was sent by God to save His people from their sins, by dying on the cross and raising from the dead, you will be saved and then the New Testament provides a series of promises for those who have taken these steps as confirmation and verification that you've been save. Thus, because I'm experiencing these promises and others are experiencing these promises after believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so I've received the confirmatory evidence that I need; I then hear of many others currently experiencing these same promises as I'm experiencing and then throughout history experiencing the same, since Jesus raised from the dead, met with His disciples, spent 40 days interacting with people and the ascending back into Heaven; this was then followed by 300 years of persecution against the early Christians that included even the Jews. So, why would I even need to be looking for problems, as you say? It's like looking for problems with being assured that you're going to drop, if you trip while going down a flight of stairs. Anything can seem like it have problems, if your approach is looking to find problems associates with it and then not being willing to investigate the subject of discussion or curiosity for yourself, independent of what the adversary says (e.g. would you go to a rival network to describe programming at Fox News or wouldn't just be more sensible to learn about it by watching it for several weeks before drawing just initial conclusions about the network?).

Since I've already had many of my questions resolved about Christianity that has convince me that I'm connected to God, I just ask God my pressing questions and ask God to lead me to any necessary solutions before I'm placed in the position to receive His Judgment (e.g. I want God to assure me and comfort throughout my life before I reach that point where I'm totally helpless to control my eternal destination; I want God to have given me various promises and assurances beforehand so that I can stand before Him with fear and trembling, predict that my eternal destination is with Him, and then jump with joy, seconds after He's announced to me: well done my good and faithful servant; and, then, as my questions come out, I get them answered and start enjoying eternity in a pleasant place that is in the presence with God; but, I'm probably going to have moments of empathetic compassion for people who didn't make it; of course, with eternity and the people around me, I'm going to be enjoying people who did make it; given God's various confirmation and verification to me, the least of my worry is just ceasing to exist, as an outcome; while I dread the horrible outcome of Hell, I'm receiving various assurances, confirmation, and verification from God that I'm going to be with Him in Heaven, in the Body of Christ, thanks to the work and Blood of Jesus).

“As soon as you look into things at a deeper level, that thread, that holy thread of explanations with the bible and god and Jesus, it starts to unravel.”

I'm legitimately not sure what you're getting at here, because, my position and experiences is from that of confirmation, verification, and assurances, so everything is actually coming together for me and has been for quite some time now; and it started when I separated my believing that I was experiencing bad luck into a realization that I was being chastened by God, instead, as a very important sign that He considers me apart of His flock because I believed on Jesus as my personal Lord and Savor (e.g. such is one of the promises within the New Testament, meaning my realizing one form of confirmation, verification, and reassurance), as I believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that He died and rose again and saved me from my sins, death, and Hell; God is continually assuring me that I'm safe, as I'm occasionally concerned.

“It turns out the universe is run by an ego maniac. Like seriously, on surface level god is ridiculous. And it becomes more apparent the closer you look into it.”

What makes you say this about a Being that's sent everyone a rescuing device from death, Hell, and the grave by simply believing in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, as the one and only initiative? Compare that to what you have to go through just to be placed into a position to start competing for a livelihood that's so essential to anybody. I see many supervisors as ego maniacs who arbitrarily abuse their authorities; there is no question that God is far more just.

“Now, before you bring up some scholarly Christian stuff, perhaps take a second to realize that your source is biased and there for has no reason to be brought up in an argument.”

Actually, it's necessary for the scholarly Christian community to be there to help defend against misinformation, disinformation, and half truths about Christianity and the evidence supporting; it's necessary because there are efforts to keep that information filtered from the mainstream; if such wasn't a problem, then it would be difficult to do what you say, but, in real reality, it's unreasonable to make such a request, as its just nonsense; can you come up with some thoughts on how various scientific literature sources are biased against establishing proof of God, creation, and Christianity? From an objective standpoint, I've seen you unsuccessfully try to somehow extract God from everything in favor of something else, starting with a cosmic egg that hasn't been proven; people get caught up in just a presumption that it';s been proven or that it's nothing more than a “for the sake of argument”; but, over time, such is being portrayed as a fact in the mainstream media, where t;'s been forgotten that it's simple a case of 'for the sake of argument'; but, at the same time, I suppose that you can say that we likewise have a 'for the sake of argument', with God, creation, and Christianity, except, as I previously described, I, and many others have received confirmation and verification that the new Testament has promises that are true and are tangible in our realities; thus, since I see your sides 'for the sake of argument' where others can't see such, the post by SC, for example, seems a bit silly, because it's illustrating that he's not realizing that his position is a 'for the sake of argument', so, by his claims, at least, it looks like we've created some type of bubble that's separate from real reality, when he's unable to see this 'for the sake of argument' present and has been tricked into believing it's actual reality, where it may not be, and certain isn't, in a “for the sake of argument” that has produced confirmation and verification for many hundreds of millions of people over say just the last 35 years. But these 'for the sake of arguments' are essential for advancing science, knowledge, and technology, particularly for the inexperienced.

“Ok, you done thanks. Oh and side note, you'd be surprised by how much I know.”

I'm sorry, if I implied that you didn't know much, as such wasn't my intention; my intention was more to steer you towards what supports God, creation, and Christianity, which you seen so vehemently opposed, by your actions, from an objective eye view.

“I know more about Christianity than most Christians so you saying I don't know about this stuff is amusing, very very amusing.”

I sincerely doubt that this could be true; if so, then it would mean that you have received all of the evidence and confirmation for God that you otherwise need, but you oppose Him, similar to me, but you've taken the opposite path; basically, an Antichrist like figure; but, there are some Christians either young or incomplete in their development; the only thing necessary for the Eternal Seal of Salvation is believing in he Gospel of Jesus Christ which is believing that Jesus died, rose again, and has substituted His efforts for ours, immediately after we have believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in order for Him deliver us from our sins, or having beliefs substantially aimed in that direction (e.g. following it as a Commandment, if all else fails, initially speaking); and then having received promises from the New Testament such as experiencing chastening; the idea that you're going to be caught by some technicality or nuance, when you're before God for Judgment is a common but unhealthy misconception about what it takes to receive your eternal salvation, as taught from within the Bible, itself, versus some Christian tradition; this is important for people considering Christianity and the Eternal Seal of Salvation to realize.

“Now go on, I'm looking forward to your response. Oh an remember, no full length essays I have a life to live.”

Sorry, I usually can't help it.

Not in Poland at least.

Flark I am sorry, I have just read a lot about like, Spirituality, Eastern philosophy, new agism, self help philosophies and I have read the bible in general and am quite familiar with it as well.

It is just in general really, really hard to explain what I mean.

Perhaps anti-intellectualism is a better fit to what I have experienced then I have just en masse like on a predictable level, it is mostly just that you know a lot of people I have known, practically like everyone in some manner or another practices anti-intellectualism in some manner. Often times they will then cite or write off something to do with self help books, gurus and new agism which are largely more influenced (and practically the same) as eastern philosophy. I experienced this really evidently living in very liberal areas wherein it's like, you see all these practices being put into place and then very globalist policies politically being enacted and suddenly you have like belief systems and what looks like a caste system that relatively resembles or is comparable to the east itself in that it is very rigid and oppressive. You are just left in general with the sense that the entire time all these self help advice books and the like have taken hold by the masses for purely fiscal, financial and political reasons. When I say liberal, I in essence really mean neo-liberal though. It's just been this ongoing trend and event that seems to superseded just about every other force socially and politically taking place in my opinion.

It all sorta started with like 9/11, I mean there was reagonomics, Margaret Thatcher, and then 9/11 and afterwards the 2008 financial crisis. Thus the title for this documentary I suppose, the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

https://youtu.be/5fbvquHSPJU

@teenspirit: Are you saying that the four hoursemen of apocalypse is Reagonomics, Margaret Thatcher, 9/11, and the 2008 Financial Crisis?

@teenspirit: Language

No I am just saying it is a generally befitting term or label to use when describing the leading causes and events which caused the on-going situation. They have all led up to each other and have been related. You could blame the neo-liberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher the unregulated deregulation of the economy globally which led to the 2008 financial crisis which the documentary makers termed the four horsemen of the apocalypse to capture in their view, the magnitude and scope that it in fact potentially covered.

9/11 was related as well it was a big shock even, if you read the shock doctrine, it coincides and fits with neoliberal policies, but whatever what does it matter what I say or write. Truth and meaning seem to stand for little to nothing.

To serendipitously quote Kurt Cobain:

Well whatever, nevermind

the choice is yours don't be late,

our little group as always been and always will until the end