• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is most responsible for Christianity's failure in the West?

See above.

  • The conspiratorial view

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • The progressive view

    Votes: 15 57.7%
  • The perspectivist view

    Votes: 8 30.8%
  • The economic view

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Total voters
    26
'Where by "failure" I mean its gradual displacement from the center of the moral and intellectual life of they civilization.'

The reason is people are slowly waking up to what a complete waste of time religion is.

All major religions are for the weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate.
 
'Where by "failure" I mean its gradual displacement from the center of the moral and intellectual life of they civilization.'

The reason is people are slowly waking up to what a complete waste of time religion is.

All major religions are for the weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate.

Holy jumping $(!7 balls!! We agree!
Oh man oh man..
 
I second that.

We can't get rid if religion bc it is a control tool for the masses. It must be preserved; sometimes even a facade serves as good cover.
 
Jesus was a Judean. there is no evidence of him being Jewish, as in, the adept of the judean faith. He didn't keep any of the jewish celebrations, he didn't hold the rabbi order in any high regard and there is no evidence of him ever being of the jewish religion.

He was the founder of Christianity.

Let me make it clear about what Jesus was in concern to his divinity and to clear the whole part as to why the Christian God is not the same God as in the Old testament in as simple terms as I possibly can. A simple cause and effect relationship.

In order for there to be a Christian God, you need Christ. No Christ, no Christian God. Since Christ didn't exist till the New testament, anything that is in the Old Testament is something other than the Christian God. Got it? I can't make it any more simple than this. I really can't.

He celebrated the jewish festivals, passover, Hannukah (festival of lights), he went to the temple, he kept the sabbath, and so on. Before his ministry he followed John the Baptist.

Jesus agreed and affirmed the Shama, the Jewish Unitarian Creed.

I'm a Christological Unitarian, as Jesus was.
 
You're either missing, or deliberately avoiding your initial claim, which was that the Christian God is not the same God who was responsible for the plagues as described in the Old Testament. It's nonsense and you haven't actually disputed it. It's the same God, the God that Jesus claimed to be. "I and my Father are one" John 10:30

You are suggesting that there was no father until there was a son. It makes no sense, even from the Christian perspective. Jesus' claim that he was God was based on the prophecies from the Old Testament. If you don't believe in the God that fortold the coming of his son, then how can you believe that the son is the son of God? The whole thing makes no sense.

John 10:30 is not an ontological claim, he's saying they are one in the same way he and the apostles are one, in spirit, read a couple chapters on.
John 17:11 "And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one" - That doesn't mean that the aposltes are one being ... literally ...
 
Ah, actually that isn't true. There were a whole lot of other religions that existed and thrived in that region. From various religions like zoroasterism and the egyptian polytheist religion and other pagan ones to the roman pagan religions.

Not so much in Galilee and Judea ...
 
He celebrated the jewish festivals, passover, Hannukah (festival of lights), he went to the temple, he kept the sabbath, and so on. Before his ministry he followed John the Baptist.

Jesus agreed and affirmed the Shama, the Jewish Unitarian Creed.

I'm a Christological Unitarian, as Jesus was.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew for bring Jewish is more than a following a faith; he was part of an ethnic group.
 
That would be Mary and some scholars say she was head of the Catholic Church in the very beginning until the church was hijacked by Peter and women became "unclean". We will never know for sure I guess.
It does seem strange that God choose a woman to bear his only son when he could of just "poofed" him into existence. Does not that make a woman the sex chosen by God as the most "holy"?

Show me a scholar that says that .... The head of the church in the begining is almost universally understood to have been James, Bishop of the Jerusalem Church.
 
Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew for bring Jewish is more than a following a faith; he was part of an ethnic group.

Ok ... But he celebrated the fetivals, worshiped at the temple, studied and quoted the Tanakh all the time, claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, was a monotheist, worshiped and prayed to yahweh, affirmed the Shama ....

He didn't found Christianity, his disciples did.
 
This is a complex theological issue, if I were to go through every scripture cited and then talk about the other scriptures it would take a long time, it's not that straight forward.

The existence of hell as a core tenant of Christianity is not a complex theological issue, it's a simple linguistic one. People who try to twist and turn the possible meanings of hell-fire and brimstone are kidding themselves.

Any Christian who denies the concept of hell is doing a disservice to their religion. It's one of the things Christianity actually has going for it over a lot of other religions: The penalty for apostasy is applied in hell after you die (which isn't scary if you don't believe in it). That stands in stark contrast to Islam which dictates that the penalty for apostasy is that you get killed immediately (I'm not claiming Muslims go around killing apostates, I'm just saying they would if they actually followed their holy book).

To claim you believe in Christianity, but not the God of the Old Testament, and that you believe in heaven but not hell really takes cherry picking to a whole new level. I'm still curious as to who Rainman thinks created the world if his God didn't exist then.
 
The existence of hell as a core tenant of Christianity is not a complex theological issue, it's a simple linguistic one. People who try to twist and turn the possible meanings of hell-fire and brimstone are kidding themselves.

Any Christian who denies the concept of hell is doing a disservice to their religion. It's one of the things Christianity actually has going for it over a lot of other religions: The penalty for apostasy is applied in hell after you die (which isn't scary if you don't believe in it). That stands in stark contrast to Islam which dictates that the penalty for apostasy is that you get killed immediately (I'm not claiming Muslims go around killing apostates, I'm just saying they would if they actually followed their holy book).

To claim you believe in Christianity, but not the God of the Old Testament, and that you believe in heaven but not hell really takes cherry picking to a whole new level. I'm still curious as to who Rainman thinks created the world if his God didn't exist then.

Hell meaning gehennah or hades? Which one are you reffering to ....
 
Hell meaning gehennah or hades? Which one are you reffering to ....

Well, if you refer back to the point and context inwhich it was raised (which is that having an irreligious view of Christianity is fundamentally unchristian, as the concept of admission to heaven and hell is well defined by Christianity, and it requires repentance for sin and/or acceptance of Christ) then it doesn't make a difference which exact description of hell you use. The point is, Christianity holds that there is one God and that he had one Son, and that there is punishment in the afterlife for not picking the right God and savior to worship and follow while you were alive. That's all the hell there needs to be for my point to be correct.
 
Well, if you refer back to the point and context inwhich it was raised (which is that having an irreligious view of Christianity is fundamentally unchristian, as the concept of admission to heaven and hell is well defined by Christianity, and it requires repentance for sin and/or acceptance of Christ) then it doesn't make a difference which exact description of hell you use. The point is, Christianity holds that there is one God and that he had one Son, and that there is punishment in the afterlife for not picking the right God and savior to worship and follow while you were alive. That's all the hell there needs to be for my point to be correct.

Where the in the bible? And what word in the bible are you translating as "hell" in that sense ... Hades is just the common grave, Gehennah meand eternal destruction, or cutting off ... meaning death with no ressurection.

Just because YOUR theology believes in hell doesn't mean its integral to CHristianity as a whole, or that it's biblical.
 
Ok ... But he celebrated the fetivals, worshiped at the temple, studied and quoted the Tanakh all the time, claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, was a monotheist, worshiped and prayed to yahweh, affirmed the Shama ....

He didn't found Christianity, his disciples did.

You are correct.
 
Where by "failure" I mean its gradual displacement from the center of the moral and intellectual life of they civilization.

To define these options bit:

Poll option one is the conservative answer. It holds that Christian belief would be as predominant today in the West as it was in 1913 if it were not for the conscious, deliberate machinations of a small group of secularizing elites promoting atheism and amorality.

My thoughts: This is the least tenable of the four options I've provided, in part because 'the elite' in the West has never been anti-Christian. To be sure, they are opposed to fundamentalism, but only because it is at odds with liberal-capitalist notions of 'progress'. The invocation of the defense of Occidental Christianity during the Cold War is proof-positive that Western elites want generally to employ Christianity to their own ends.

Poll option two is the liberal answer, the "secularization thesis". According to this theory, Christianity is doomed to deplacement, as are all religions eventually, by the gradual and wholly unconscious forces of mental and mechanical progress.

My thoughts: This is almost as problematic a solution to the question posed as the first answer. It assumes a great deal of the structure of Christian ideology - progress towards a "new Heaven and a new Earth", an eventual end to history, and so on - while draining it of its metaphysical content.

Option three is what I call the Nietzscheite option: Christianity has failed because it is inherently flawed. It can exist only among theoppressed, and as soon as a people become strong enough to shirk ofc a collective sense of inferiority it will abolish the correspondent notimon of individual existential guilt that informs Christianity.

My opinion: This is the view I hold closest to. Christianity, in a very real sense, requires weakness to thrive (it is little wonder that Christianity is ascendant today only in the impoverished Third World nations of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the American South). A strong people wants a religion of strength and severity.

Option four: The Marxist solution. Christianity belongs at the historical latest to the age of feudalism; the rising capitalists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sought initially to do away with it altogether, as a reminder of the hated age of the nobility, and retain it only as a matter of practicalg politica expedience.

My opinion: This is superficially similar to the liberal answer, relying on notions of deterministic 'progress', but avoids some of its problems by acknowledging the fact of necessity and human action in historical processes, rather than ascribing all history to forces largely independent of men.

I would say your preferred option is half there. In the West we have become indolent and wealthy - we are strong "as a people", perhaps, but weak as individuals. Significant portions of us seek to maximize frivolous self-pleasure (the result being that we get none, like jobs, joy is a by-product not an end in itself). Christianity dies not because we are stronger, but because we no longer face challenges, and so we are weaker.
 
Where the in the bible? And what word in the bible are you translating as "hell" in that sense ... Hades is just the common grave, Gehennah meand eternal destruction, or cutting off ... meaning death with no ressurection.

Just because YOUR theology believes in hell doesn't mean its integral to CHristianity as a whole, or that it's biblical.

Wait what? My theology believes in hell? Since when? This isn't about my theology, it's about the biblical references to punishment in the afterlife for not believing in God and Jesus. Can people ignore it and still call themselves Christians? Sure. I could call myself a Jew today, Muslim tomorrow, and a Christian on Monday without ever changing my beliefs. It wouldn't mean I was actually a believer in any of those religions (I'm not, incidentally).
 
That's true since humans invented Christianity and all other religions, it's easy to just point fingers at humans and pretend that the people who believe in and support religion are no worse than anyone else. That's not really true though, these are irrational people who believe in imaginary friends in the sky. They are often willing to ignore basic morality and logic in order to cling to their emotionally comforting faith. That's why we blame Christians and Christianity for the problems caused by the beliefs and the believers. They've earned it.

So according to you the sins of a few justifies the condemnation of the whole? You live in CA, a state where pot is legal. According to you, if you are a supporter of the legalization of canibis, that makes a good for nothing, delusional pot-head who has "moments of clarity" during highs and posts things on this forum. That's of course according to your narrow view of Chrisitanity.

Tell me Cephus, were you present during creation? Were you present during the Big Bang? Isn't what you perceive as logic just a series of processed thoughts that your mind believes to be truth? Isn't logic just an ideal conjured by the mind of Greek philosophers who were also trying to understand the universe and its mysteries?

If Albert Einstein himself could not disprove creation in pursuit of the truth while researching his theories (which by the way lead to his belief in a beginning), what makes you think that you have found the truth of the universe?

Point being, your belief that Christianity is as fake as Candy land is farce. I don't profess to know the truth either, no one knows if God is real or not.

Your response makes you seem rather irrational.
 
If Albert Einstein himself could not disprove creation in pursuit of the truth while researching his theories (which by the way lead to his belief in a beginning), what makes you think that you have found the truth of the universe?
Einstein also believed in the Steady State universe, so much so that he made what he himself called his greatest blunder just to squeeze that belief into his equations.
 
So according to you the sins of a few justifies the condemnation of the whole? You live in CA, a state where pot is legal. According to you, if you are a supporter of the legalization of canibis, that makes a good for nothing, delusional pot-head who has "moments of clarity" during highs and posts things on this forum. That's of course according to your narrow view of Chrisitanity.

I am not a supporter of drug legalization and in California, it is legal for medical purposes only, not for general use. However, you're wrong. It isn't the "sins" of the few that bring condemnation on them all, all theists, be it Christians or Muslims or Jews or Hindus, etc. believe in something for which they can produce no objective evidence that it's actually so. There is no fundamental difference between a Christian and someone who believes in Bigfoot or alien abductions. The delusional deserve condemnation.

Tell me Cephus, were you present during creation? Were you present during the Big Bang? Isn't what you perceive as logic just a series of processed thoughts that your mind believes to be truth? Isn't logic just an ideal conjured by the mind of Greek philosophers who were also trying to understand the universe and its mysteries?

Nope, were you? I didn't have to be though because we have something called objective evidence and a methodology called science that has proven to be the only single methodology that produces demonstrably true predictive results. Whereas science produced that computer you're typing on and the Internet and every modern convenience that you enjoy, what has religion given to us? Wars? Intolerance? Fantasy?

If Albert Einstein himself could not disprove creation in pursuit of the truth while researching his theories (which by the way lead to his belief in a beginning), what makes you think that you have found the truth of the universe?

There was a beginning to our universe, it's borne out by the evidence. That doesn't mean the universe began as an intelligent creative act. Only a moron would think that.

Point being, your belief that Christianity is as fake as Candy land is farce. I don't profess to know the truth either, no one knows if God is real or not.

No one knows to any degree of absolute certainty, but then again, absolute certainty isn't a factor in most rational decisions. However, judging by the objective evidence, it seems absurd to think there is some magical father figure in the sky that intimately cares what goes on in people's bedrooms. As science advances, all of those little cracks and crevices that religion has tried to shove God into become revealed to be part of nature. You people are running out of places to hide your God.

Your response makes you seem rather irrational.

You let me know when you have any actual, defensible, objective evidence for the factual existence of your God. Until then, I'm not going to believe it. That's about as rational as it gets.
 
Wait what? My theology believes in hell? Since when? This isn't about my theology, it's about the biblical references to punishment in the afterlife for not believing in God and Jesus. Can people ignore it and still call themselves Christians? Sure. I could call myself a Jew today, Muslim tomorrow, and a Christian on Monday without ever changing my beliefs. It wouldn't mean I was actually a believer in any of those religions (I'm not, incidentally).

Give me a verse, If you wan't to debate hell we can do that.

My point is you have many theologians that take the fact that the bible doesn't teach eternal suffering in a hell.

I'm a Christian, and I understand that the bible DOESN'T teach eternal suffering in hell. The reason I ask about the Hades and Gehenna distinction is because it matters when your trying to interperate verses.
 
christianty has no fault

christians have
 
Back
Top Bottom