• 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
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"?

One of the things I've most wondered about regarding Christianity. As the story goes, Mary asked the angel how she could be pregnant, since she was a virgin. The angel told her that God had made her pregnant through a miracle. When you really think about it...this means that Mary was supposedly impregnated without giving her consent. A non-consensual act that causes a pregnancy today...not a good thing.

Now, I would pose the same question that you did about why god didn't just poof Jesus into existence...sort of like the story went with Adam and Eve. I mean Jesus could have been instantly created as a baby...left on Mary's door step. That obviously wouldn't have been as dramatic, finding a baby on her doorstep. And the catholic religion would be significantly different, if non-existent because Mary plays a pretty big role in that religion. Although if Mary did find Jesus at her door and she took him in and raised him pretty much the same way that she did...then that might have made altruism more admired. Wait, if Mary found Jesus on her doorstep...there would also have to be a note attached to Jesus saying that the was the son of god, which might not work. Sooo, I guess we have to go back to the virgin birth thing again for the supernatural effect. Today a virgin birth is called "artificial insemination".
 
One of the things I've most wondered about regarding Christianity. As the story goes, Mary asked the angel how she could be pregnant, since she was a virgin. The angel told her that God had made her pregnant through a miracle. When you really think about it...this means that Mary was supposedly impregnated without giving her consent. A non-consensual act that causes a pregnancy today...not a good thing.

Apparently, according to theists, God gets to rape 13-year old girls. Go figure.
 
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.

Whether or not Christianity has "failed" at all is frankly a matter of some debate. However, going off of what you have presented, I think the reason behind the relative decline in Western Christian influence in recent centuries can be primarily attributed to a combination of options one (Conservative), three (Nietzscheite), and four (Marxist).

The Conservative explanation is correct in pointing out that a deliberate and persistent movement to marginalize and discredit the view of ethics and the world in general presented by Christianity in favor of more "progressive" ideas can be observed to exist among the Western "intellectual elite." The Marxist explanation, for its own part, is correct in pointing out that this movement originated during the Enlightenment era among Liberals, Libertines, and Capitalists who sought to remake the prevailing European social and political order of the 18th and 19th centuries in their own, overwhelmingly secular and materialist, image.

While the popularity of this goal has waxed and waned over the course of the decades since in the face of the different challenges Western Civilization has come to face (i.e. as you pointed out yourself, the threat of atheistic, anti-Liberal, and anti-Capitalist Communists resulted in a strong resurgence of pro-Christian messages in mainstream culture during the mid 20th Century), it has never gone away completely among the ranks of the Western intelligentsia. In today's world, for example, the banner of the anti-Christian, anti-theist, and anti-traditionalist cause is unsubtly (and some might even say, proudly) borne by academia and the mainstream media alike.

However, at the end of the day, you are correct in pointing out that the plots and machinations of society's elite can only carry things so far by themselves. This is where the Nietzscheite explanation comes into play.

It is absolutely no secret that Christianity, and even religion in general, thrive most in times of want and adversity. The New Testament itself admits to this fact.

Matthew 19:24 said:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

The simple fact of the matter is that human beings are shallow and selfish creatures who will always look to their own gratification before any loftier goal. As such, most of them have no real need to look to the supernatural for validation or comfort when earthly goods are present in abundance. The idea of heavenly paradise in the hereafter often seems trite when one can find hedonistic pleasures aplenty right here on earth.

In case you haven't noticed, earthly goods and hedonistic pleasures ad infinitum are precisely what our modern consumerist society seeks to, and often does, provide its citizenry.

As standards of living and leisure in the Western World continue to climb ever higher, so too has the relative importance of religion begun to fade into the background of social consciousness for many people. After all, no one wants to be lectured on the value of such concepts as "temperance," "responsibility," or "morality" when living in a society which seemingly allows one to bypass them all entirely.

This is a phenomena which, as I have already pointed out, academia and the media have been only too happy to support in the interests of furthering their own agenda. They encourage and enable such behavior with the increasingly crass and risqué material they continue to churn out year after year.

Keep in mind, however; that none of this is to say that any of these developments have necessarily been for the better. Given the general state of the Western World in our current era, it would actually seem to have been much for the worse.

Rampant apathy and hedonistic excess are slowly but surely bringing Western Civilization to its knees.
 
Last edited:
The answer to the OP is simple: There is no evidence the God, as described in the Bible, exists.
 
The option I would choose is not there. I think that the lessening impact of the church in the West is caused by two factors:

1) Alternatives to social/information gathering. 100 years ago and earlier, the church was the social and informational hub of many towns and locales. With the advent and common usage and access of communication technology and transportation technology. the church is no longer the center of either socializing or gathering information, either locally or beyond.

2) Media presentation of religious extremists. From "televangelists" to news stories of the behavior or religious extremists, the media saturation of the religious who are outside of the mainstream has impacted the overall perception of many in the West. Most folks are NOT extremists, including people who are religious, but when extremism is packaged with the religious name, it is easy to make too close of an association of the two.

I don't see Christianity as "failing" in the West, but I do see it's influence as falling.

2 Thessalonian 2:[1] Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
[2] That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
[4] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
[5] Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
[6] And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
[7] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[8] And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
[9] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
[12] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[13] But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Keep the faith brother.
 
105-the-problem-with-some-christians.jpg

This certainly doesn't help.
 
The progressive view largely, although the self defeating nature of some of its wars in the social arena shoulder some of the responsibility as well.
 
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.
None of the above really although the "secularization thesis" is probably the closest to my opinion.

In short, Christianity has begun to outlive its usefulness in certain respects. The Christian Church used to be one of the main, if not the only, sources of education. People (men) who wanted learn studied in the Church. However, as books/newspapers/et al. started to become more "democratized", the Church started losing its monopoly on knowledge and education and so it outlived its usefulness in that respect.

The promise of salvation offered by Christianity has also begun to outlive its usefulness in the West as people now have more opportunities to get work and live a comfortable live. When the West was a hellhole and the "masses" were living like crap and plagues were all over the place and working standards didn't exist and so on, those "masses" found solace in the promise of a better life after they died - the promise that those who were discarded on Earth would be rewarded in Heaven. Now, it's a lot easier to get rewards on Earth so Christianity has again begun outliving its usefulness as a means of dealing with reality.

There's also the issue of people becoming meaningfully aware of different religions. In the past, populations were primarily confined to themselves. There wasn't the amount of cross-cultural interaction that we have today and, as a result, there wasn't much room for critical thought or reason to engage in it as everybody just believed the same thing anyway. Now, many people look around all the competing religious theories and see that as evidence that Christianity isn't as necessarily reliable as they might have thought.
 
Apparently, according to theists, God gets to rape 13-year old girls. Go figure.

That's certainly a possibility. But remember, everybody on this site...is very likely to be 100% human. We do know that much. Well, according to the label that we gave ourselves. As far as a supernatural entity possessing our bodies. Personally, I don't buy it. Never have. And not even a little bit.

It's odd to me that people here think that they were born religious...or of some denomination. That must be true...because natives in the Amazon apparently believe that too. Their Sun god is as real to them as Jesus is to some here. The Sun god picked them. And Jesus picked other folks...go figure?
 
That's certainly a possibility. But remember, everybody on this site...is very likely to be 100% human. We do know that much. Well, according to the label that we gave ourselves. As far as a supernatural entity possessing our bodies. Personally, I don't buy it. Never have. And not even a little bit.

It's odd to me that people here think that they were born religious...or of some denomination. That must be true...because natives in the Amazon apparently believe that too. Their Sun god is as real to them as Jesus is to some here. The Sun god picked them. And Jesus picked other folks...go figure?

No, nobody is born religious, nobody pops out of the womb believing in any gods. They have to be indoctrinated into that belief when they are young and gullible. It doesn't matter where that kind of indoctrination is done, here or in the Amazon, it's still forcing a belief for which there isn't a shred of objective evidence on a child who doesn't know any better and isn't able to refuse.

That's child abuse as far as I'm concerned.
 
I think a major reason that religion is failing or declining is because being a Christian is hard to define and put into daily practice. I think one reason for that is wrong use of the Bible. I believe that the Bible contains cultural elements and what we are seeing as we read the Bible is how people believed and acted in their culture and their understanding of God. They defined Christianity based in large measure on Jewish teachings and on Jesus's "you have heard but I say" updates. The greatest difference I see was the emphasis that Jesus placed om love.

I think that we are called on to redefine for action Christianity today. We should first look to see how others reacted to God's input in their lives and the love they felt He has for humanity. We should then seek answers for today based on our current state of knowledge. Two of many possible examples. We should take responsibility for our impact on the climate and possible global warming
based on the best scientific evidence and not assume that God will protect us from ourselves. In thinking about homosexuality we should make every effort to determine if it is a choice and not just assume it is sinful. Whaever the evidence shows or how it is interpreted IMO we should not judge homosexuality but leave that to God.

My main point is that I think we should ask God to guide us in our thinking and actions and not let others who came along several centuries ago do our thinking for us.
 
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 actually think Option Two is very persuasive as a good explanation, or at least a slightly modified version of that option. The explosion of knowledge and scientific progress that began in the 19th Century does not just coincidentally line up with the appearance of the wave of rationalist and secular thinkers of the Enlightenment. Both the sudden possibility that science could offer explanations to things which were previously the realm of the spiritual and the tantalizing prospect that technology could build a new Jerusalem on Earth were powerful motivators in hewing at the foundations of Christianities popularity. It created a plausible alternative to the worldview offered by Christianity and very slowly (or rapidly depending on your perspective) has created an alternative to most religions in general. Both the increasing knowledge that we have gained about biology, cosmology, physics, etc and the incredible power of our technology has made the basis of religion far less compelling. As our knowledge increases and our technological reach grows I suspect that religion will continue to retreat.
 
I made a long and extremely thorough post on the prophecies. the jest of it is:
there are a lot of conflicting prophecies about jesus and you can put them in 3 categories.

1. The detailed ones that told us about where he was going to be born and how he would be identified (of the line of David and born in Bethleem, etc).
2. The peace-loving ones where they told us how he would heal the world and bring peace..
3. The ones that aren't peace-loving that told us that he would strike down the enemies of Israel and establish Israel as the greatest nation, enslaving others etc.

So #2 and #3 don't really mix and it does seem to be written by bipolar jews who wanted either a hippy or a mass murderer. Maybe depending on how they were feeling about the Egyptians, Baylonians or what other nation they hated at each particular time in their history.

Needless to say, Jesus didn't bother much with #3, partially fulfilled #2 and was right on #1. The closest he got to #3 was when he said mean words at the rabbi order "den of vipers" because they were as such.

So yeah.

Again. Simple cause-and-effect relationship.

You can't have a Christian God until you have Christ. If you don't have Christ in ancient Egypt, Sodoma and gomorra, the flood... so yeah. etc. You do have a Jewish God.

Again, I still don't understand what you think I got wrong. The God who unleashed the plagues in the Old Testament is the same God that Jesus claimed to be. If you're saying it's not the same God, then that means you don't believe in the story of creation, adam and eve, and all the rest of it. Or is it only the plagues that was a "different" God, but all the stuff you happen to like was your God?

Sorry dude, your line of reason is not only nonsensical from a non-religious perspective, but it's not even consistent with Christian beliefs. Jews and Christians believe in the same "base" God, it's whether Jesus was actually his son that they disagree on (and therefore whether we should care what Jesus said).
 
Actually, the symbol of Christianity is a crucifix.

No, al Qaeda is definitely a Muslim terrorist group. Religious violence is their agenda. Where as with the Klowns, racial violence is their agenda.

There's a difference, believe it, or not.

The ku klux klan is definitley is a christian organization. Only christians can join so its a christian organization.
 
Christianity's decline is due to the fact that it is a religion of choice and that has been realized by all mainstream Christian groups. No one here is erecting speakers above churches to force people to listen to prayers 5 times a day. I don't remember the last time a person was stoned, hung, etc by a mainstream Christian group. It is a free choice of whether a person wants to be a Christian or not. Many choose not to be a Christian due to what is perceived as to be a lifestyle that "isnt fun" in my opinion. Im sure a lot of you will dispute my last statement and you are free to do so. It is simply my opinion.
 
Christianity's decline is due to the fact that it is a religion of choice and that has been realized by all mainstream Christian groups. No one here is erecting speakers above churches to force people to listen to prayers 5 times a day. I don't remember the last time a person was stoned, hung, etc by a mainstream Christian group. It is a free choice of whether a person wants to be a Christian or not. Many choose not to be a Christian due to what is perceived as to be a lifestyle that "isnt fun" in my opinion. Im sure a lot of you will dispute my last statement and you are free to do so. It is simply my opinion.



Well, after 2013 years of this garbage, it isn't so strange for some to have abandoned this inane trek to Jerusalem.....................
 
Well, after 2013 years of this garbage, it isn't so strange for some to have abandoned this inane trek to Jerusalem.....................
Who's trekking to Jerusalem? Oh, you were trying to make a smarmy point that has no real intellectual value. Got it.:thumbs:
 
You are...............
Well, I am wearing sandals right now but other than that what would lead you to believe that I am currently "trekking" to Jerusalem? There are a few issues with that:
1) I am an American, living in America. I cannot "trek" the Atlantic Ocean. Jesus walked on water. Us non-Sons of God cannot.
2) I am currently typing on a computer. Typing (on a laptop) and "trekking" is virtually impossible.
3) Unlike the faith of Islam, we (Christians) don't have to visit a certain place to fulfill a pillar.
4) I have a job (US Marine) that would kind of frown upon me just up and leaving to "trek". That is, unless Im "trekking" in a helmet and body armor with a pack on. Then it's okay. I don't believe America will ever do any "trekking" of that kind in Israel though.
5) If I were "trekking" to Israel, despite all of the aforementioned obstacles and restrictions that would prevent it, do you really believe I would be wasting my time with you while doing it? What if I stub my toe? I am wearing sandals after all (the only clue that suggests I am "trekking" right now btw).
 
Well, I am wearing sandals right now but other than that what would lead you to believe that I am currently "trekking" to Jerusalem? There are a few issues with that:
1) I am an American, living in America. I cannot "trek" the Atlantic Ocean. Jesus walked on water. Us non-Sons of God cannot.
2) I am currently typing on a computer. Typing (on a laptop) and "trekking" is virtually impossible.
3) Unlike the faith of Islam, we (Christians) don't have to visit a certain place to fulfill a pillar.
4) I have a job (US Marine) that would kind of frown upon me just up and leaving to "trek". That is, unless Im "trekking" in a helmet and body armor with a pack on. Then it's okay. I don't believe America will ever do any "trekking" of that kind in Israel though.
5) If I were "trekking" to Israel, despite all of the aforementioned obstacles and restrictions that would prevent it, do you really believe I would be wasting my time with you while doing it? What if I stub my toe? I am wearing sandals after all (the only clue that suggests I am "trekking" right now btw).



Denial is not a good look for a man.....................
 
The ku klux klan is definitley is a christian organization. Only christians can join so its a christian organization.

Promotion of Christianity, their specific brand of it, is certainly one of their goals. Just like any other religiously-based organization.
 
I feel it stems from the scientific progressiveness in the west; where the old day miracles are still a myth of religion, people see science based "miracles" on a regular basis. Where the bible speaks of healing the sick, the blind, the deaf, etc., no one has duplicated these via religion in modern history. Science has, on all three counts. That science has replaced religion as our source of miracles, it is replacing our source of hope. Excepting the unfortunate scientific illiteracy problems of the west, there just isn't any reason for religion to replace science, but plenty of reasons for science to replace religion. Case in point; I know plenty ex-christians, but not many ex-atheists. In contrast, the places where Christianity thrives are also places without much modern technological presence; North/Central Africa and some remote islands.
 
Again, I still don't understand what you think I got wrong. The God who unleashed the plagues in the Old Testament is the same God that Jesus claimed to be. If you're saying it's not the same God, then that means you don't believe in the story of creation, adam and eve, and all the rest of it. Or is it only the plagues that was a "different" God, but all the stuff you happen to like was your God?

Sorry dude, your line of reason is not only nonsensical from a non-religious perspective, but it's not even consistent with Christian beliefs. Jews and Christians believe in the same "base" God, it's whether Jesus was actually his son that they disagree on (and therefore whether we should care what Jesus said).

No, my line of reasoning is quite sound, I assure you.

You cannot talk of a Christian God before the appearance of Christ. There was no Christian God before Christ. How hard is it to grasp that concept?

Christian God = Christ + God + The Holy Spirit.
Jewish God = God (Yahweh) + The Holy Spirit

The fact that there is a Christ in the equation of the Christian God makes the christian god =/= jewish God

=/= means not equal.

Another way to look at it mathematically.

Jewish God - Christian god = -Jesus
Christian God - Jewish God = Jesus
Christian God - Christian God = 0
Jewish god - jewish God = 0

See how you have a jesus over there messing the mathematical equation? Yes? That is why you can't speak of a Christian God before the events of the New testament. Everything in the Old Testament is the jewish god. Everything in the new testament is the Christian God.

It's like in chemistry.
If you add another O to H2O, you get H2O2. If you drink H2O you live. If you drink H2O2 you die.
Not saying that one religion is H2O and the other is H2O2. It's again, a metaphor.
 
No, my line of reasoning is quite sound, I assure you.

You cannot talk of a Christian God before the appearance of Christ. There was no Christian God before Christ. How hard is it to grasp that concept?

Christian God = Christ + God + The Holy Spirit.
Jewish God = God (Yahweh) + The Holy Spirit

The fact that there is a Christ in the equation of the Christian God makes the christian god =/= jewish God

=/= means not equal.

Another way to look at it mathematically.

Jewish God - Christian god = -Jesus
Christian God - Jewish God = Jesus
Christian God - Christian God = 0
Jewish god - jewish God = 0

See how you have a jesus over there messing the mathematical equation? Yes? That is why you can't speak of a Christian God before the events of the New testament. Everything in the Old Testament is the jewish god. Everything in the new testament is the Christian God.

It's like in chemistry.
If you add another O to H2O, you get H2O2. If you drink H2O you live. If you drink H2O2 you die.
Not saying that one religion is H2O and the other is H2O2. It's again, a metaphor.

Where did the Jewish God go when the Christian God showed up.
 
Back
Top Bottom