• 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
Some are some are not. Just depends on which God myth they believe is real.

Never heard of a secular humanist firing a woman for being pregnant.

You keep calling it God myth. I dislike that, gave you the benefit of the doubt that you mistyped or meant to say something else. I see now that it is a deliberate arrangement, so I shall decide to ignore you on the base that you're a ( . ) <--- my way of saying fill in the blanks. It's the equivalent of " ... " really.

Also. communism. True, they didn't killed people for being pregnant. they did kill people for being priests.. .or being religious in any way. So yeah. Cheers.
 
I've not argued that my Christianity is a polytheist religion. Where have I done that?
You specifically, categorically stated that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are not the same God. That means they are different Gods, which means any religion that is founded on both the Old and the New Testaments would be polytheistic by definition.

I've just stated that you can't attribute the events of the OT to the god of the NT because the god of the NT is the God of Christianity...
So the God of Christianity didn't create man? You do know that stuff all happened in the Old Testament right? Who did create man? Jesus?

and he is not the same one as the god of the OT. And the events of the NT cannot be attributed to the god of the OT.
Of course they can. The whole point is that Jesus was the flesh and blood of the God who wrote the Old Testament. That's what your entire religion is based on.

I have provided sufficient examples and explanations to support my viewpoint, metaphores and all. Just because you can't see things that way doesn't mean you are right. It doesn't make me right either, but I have the advantage of bringing more to the debate where as you have simply recycled one silly, nonsensical point.

The fact that your argument contradicts itself makes you wrong by default. It makes you especially wrong when there is no mainstream Christian school of thought or teaching that states the Christian God isn't the God who wrote the Old Testament. It's simply not a Christian viewpoint.
 
You specifically, categorically stated that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are not the same God. That means they are different Gods, which means any religion that is founded on both the Old and the New Testaments would be polytheistic by definition.

So the God of Christianity didn't create man? You do know that stuff all happened in the Old Testament right? Who did create man? Jesus?

Of course they can. The whole point is that Jesus was the flesh and blood of the God who wrote the Old Testament. That's what your entire religion is based on.

The fact that your argument contradicts itself makes you wrong by default. It makes you especially wrong when there is no mainstream Christian school of thought or teaching that states the Christian God isn't the God who wrote the Old Testament. It's simply not a Christian viewpoint.

You can't attribute the events of the OT to the god of the NT and vice versa. What part of this simple statement can't you grasp?

I tire of this entire debate which is turning out more like me behaving like a bloody parrot and you like a monkey.

I shall cease repeating myself and since i have nothing more to add, I shall retire. I have made the points i decided to make, explained them in ample manner with plenty of examples. Your lack of a proper education in Christian philosophy cannot be mended over the internet.

Bye.
 
You keep calling it God myth. I dislike that, gave you the benefit of the doubt that you mistyped or meant to say something else. I see now that it is a deliberate arrangement, so I shall decide to ignore you on the base that you're a ( . ) <--- my way of saying fill in the blanks. It's the equivalent of " ... " really.

Also. communism. True, they didn't killed people for being pregnant. they did kill people for being priests.. .or being religious in any way. So yeah. Cheers.

It is a God myth. There are so many God myths that we can't believe they are all true. The Jewish Christian Muslim and Hindu myths can't all be true.
 
You keep calling it God myth. I dislike that, gave you the benefit of the doubt that you mistyped or meant to say something else. I see now that it is a deliberate arrangement, so I shall decide to ignore you on the base that you're a ( . ) <--- my way of saying fill in the blanks. It's the equivalent of " ... " really.

Also. communism. True, they didn't killed people for being pregnant. they did kill people for being priests.. .or being religious in any way. So yeah. Cheers.

Well, he's using the term correctly. Plus calling something a myth doesn't necessarily mean it's not true:

myth
/miTH/
Noun
A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically...
Such stories collectively.
 
The people talking about how science has refuted some religious claims reminded me of this quote

“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”

― Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor
 
I've not argued that my Christianity is a polytheist religion. Where have I done that? I've just stated that you can't attribute the events of the OT to the god of the NT because the god of the NT is the God of Christianity... and he is not the same one as the god of the OT. And the events of the NT cannot be attributed to the god of the OT.

I have provided sufficient examples and explanations to support my viewpoint, metaphores and all. Just because you can't see things that way doesn't mean you are right. It doesn't make me right either, but I have the advantage of bringing more to the debate where as you have simply recycled one silly, nonsensical point.

I think an answer to his question is well deserved: Where did the God of the OT go when the Christian God appeared? This is problematic.

1. Either there are two gods and they did battle with each other. This undermines a central tenant of mainstream Abrahamic religion.

2. The OT is not 'real' which poses existential problems for the story of Christ

3. Or they are the same deity in which case explanation of his points is required.
 
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'm Baha'i and I believe in progressive revelation, meaning that religion has to be "updated" every couple of centuries to catch up with the development of mankind. Every religion has a life cycle, starting with spring, growing to full strength in its summer, then slowly retreating in autumn until it loses its power in winter. At that point, it has to be renewed by a new revelation.

Christianity was the best answer to the ills of mankind (or rather, of the occidental civilization) in 1 AD and the following centuries. But it's no longer the ideal religion for our times, IMO. That's because man and civilization has progressed in the past 2000 years. Muhammed brought an "update" in the 7th century AD which was tailor-cut for the Arab peoples of that time, but it's outdated now too. The best revelation and religion for our day and age is the Baha'i faith, revealed by Baha'u'llah in the 19th century. This faith is still very small and weak, in its spring, but will probably gain traction over the next centuries, as more people will find it suiting for today's problems.

I believe Christianity is inevitably losing strength in the West because we have progressed in the past 2000 years and the best answers back then are not necessarily still the best answers today. Some churches or denominations may be capable of slowing down this trend, by "modernizing" their services and interpretations, but this will only slow down the inevitable. IMO.
 
I think an answer to his question is well deserved: Where did the God of the OT go when the Christian God appeared? This is problematic.

1. Either there are two gods and they did battle with each other. This undermines a central tenant of mainstream Abrahamic religion.

2. The OT is not 'real' which poses existential problems for the story of Christ

3. Or they are the same deity in which case explanation of his points is required.

I believe the God of the OT is the same God as the Christian God (and the Muslim God too, for that matter). There is just one God; assuming anything else is polytheism or even idolatry.

God just appears to be different, because he's using different "education methods" towards different peoples at different stages of development. Just like a father will use different methods of education towards his children at different points of their development, and towards different children with different characters.

The bronze age Jewish people was a different people than 1st century Romans, so God had to guide these different peoples differently.
 
I believe the God of the OT is the same God as the Christian God (and the Muslim God too, for that matter). There is just one God; assuming anything else is polytheism or even idolatry.

God just appears to be different, because he's using different "education methods" towards different peoples at different stages of development. Just like a father will use different methods of education towards his children at different points of their development, and towards different children with different characters.

The bronze age Jewish people was a different people than 1st century Romans, so God had to guide these different peoples differently.

Just like things are different now and we have different ethics and view right and wrong differently.
 
I believe the God of the OT is the same God as the Christian God (and the Muslim God too, for that matter). There is just one God; assuming anything else is polytheism or even idolatry.

God just appears to be different, because he's using different "education methods" towards different peoples at different stages of development. Just like a father will use different methods of education towards his children at different points of their development, and towards different children with different characters.

The bronze age Jewish people was a different people than 1st century Romans, so God had to guide these different peoples differently.

Fairly given, I was trying to prompt the other user for an answer to the questions he was given as I don't think it's something that cannot be reasonably hand-waved away.

That being said I think your explanation has problems of its own. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving creator why was it necessary to impose a spectrum of moral code that slides dramatically from century to century? Surely if a deity had ripped open the fabric of reality at Mt. Sinai and revealed himself to the multitudes he would have had carte blanche to issue a more progressive moral code than the brutish one that was delivered to the Israelites? In many ways the moral code of the Israelites was more primitive than that which existed in many other places on the planet at the time, did Sino-Indian civilization exceed the progressive inclinations of god?

I'm unconvinced by the argument of 'to each time their own measure'. If God exists and he is benevolent there is no need for such a strange, contorted, and positively slow evolution of morality which oddly ceased to deliver divine instructions after the 1st Century AD.
 
I'm unconvinced by the argument of 'to each time their own measure'. If God exists and he is benevolent there is no need for such a strange, contorted, and positively slow evolution of morality which oddly ceased to deliver divine instructions after the 1st Century AD.

Well, Baha'i believe that God did not cease to deliver divine instructions after the 1st century AD: In the 7th century, Muhammed revealed Islam and in the 19th century, the Bab and Baha'u'llah revealed the Baha'i faith. In ca. 850 years from now, another divine prophet is assumed to appear to once again deliver an "update".

As for the "brutish" law for the Israelites: I believe it was the best possible law for that people at that time. That people struggled for its mere survival in a very hostile environment.
 
Your lack of a proper education in Christian philosophy cannot be mended over the internet.
I find this offensive for a couple of reasons, and I'd like to make sure you understand them.

The first is that I went to a Christian school and a Christian education. To question my level of education rather than address the simple flaw in your reasoning that you haven't even attempted to explain is simply poor form on your part. You said I was wrong, and that your God isn't the one who made the world in seven days, flooded everyone except Noah and his posse, and foretold the coming of Christ. You haven't even attempted to reconcile that statement with the many religious contradictions it raises.

The second is your notion that what you are saying is the traditional Christian viewpoint. It isn't. Christianity holds that God is eternal, and that a couple of thousand years ago he sent a son to this earth to give us guidance. It also holds that before he sent the son down, he wrote a book which we call the Old Testament, which detailed some of his activities, and some laws for us to live by. Christianity doesn't claim that God didn't exist before Jesus. That's why I was offended by your first point about understanding and education, because there isn't a single mainstream form of Christianity that teaches what you're saying.
 
I find this offensive for a couple of reasons, and I'd like to make sure you understand them.

The first is that I went to a Christian school and a Christian education. To question my level of education rather than address the simple flaw in your reasoning that you haven't even attempted to explain is simply poor form on your part. You said I was wrong, and that your God isn't the one who made the world in seven days, flooded everyone except Noah and his posse, and foretold the coming of Christ. You haven't even attempted to reconcile that statement with the many religious contradictions it raises.

The second is your notion that what you are saying is the traditional Christian viewpoint. It isn't. Christianity holds that God is eternal, and that a couple of thousand years ago he sent a son to this earth to give us guidance. It also holds that before he sent the son down, he wrote a book which we call the Old Testament, which detailed some of his activities, and some laws for us to live by. Christianity doesn't claim that God didn't exist before Jesus. That's why I was offended by your first point about understanding and education, because there isn't a single mainstream form of Christianity that teaches what you're saying.

While it is true that I did insult you on the basis of your Christian philosophy education(and I guess it was out of line), the first critique I have of you is not having any sort of logical skills (and that isn't out of line) or comprehension ability of new data.

You cannot talk about the Christian God before the events of the New Testament.

God, as in, God the father, yes, he is eternal. Who said he isn't? Did I ever say that? No, I didn't, only in the context that you can't attribute the events of the old testament to the Christian God.

Christianity's God = Jesus Christ + God the Father + The holy spirit.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Judaism's God = God + the holy spirit.

The 2 don't equate one another. They aren't the same. I have told you, while there is an inheritance relationship(the money metaphor I made before), there is a whole new identity of god in the new testament. One that cannot be equated to the identity that god had in the old testament. So therefore, the God of Christianity =/= god of Judaism.
 
While it is true that I did insult you on the basis of your Christian philosophy education(and I guess it was out of line), the first critique I have of you is not having any sort of logical skills (and that isn't out of line) or comprehension ability of new data.
This isn't "new data" and your idea that the God who Christians worship didn't exist before Jesus is both nonsensical and unchristian.

You cannot talk about the Christian God before the events of the New Testament.
Sure you can, just as Jesus did on numerous occasions. Again, stop avoiding the question: If your God didn't exist before the New Testament, does that mean Christians don't believe their God created man? Does it mean Christians don't believe their God is the one who was responsible for Adam and Eve? It's a ridiculous assertion to make.

God, as in, God the father, yes, he is eternal. Who said he isn't? Did I ever say that? No,
Yes you did, it's the whole point of what you're saying. You're saying the father isn't a God that you worship, or that he's a different God from Jesus. Neither of those views are in line with Christian philosophy. If he is eternal and he isn't the God of the Old Testament, that means we are talking about two Gods, which again isn't what Christianity is about.

I didn't, only in the context that you can't attribute the events of the old testament to the Christian God.
So you can't attribute the creation of man or the prophecies of Jesus being the son of God to God? And you think that somehow makes sense?

Christianity's God = Jesus Christ + God the Father + The holy spirit.
So your God actually did unleash the plagues of Egypt, I was right all along, and you actually agree with me? Well, this was a complete waste of time then.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Judaism's God = God + the holy spirit.
What's so hard to understand is that you just said your God includes the one who unleashed the plagues, and therefore you aren't actually disagreeing with me, despite emphatically stating that I was wrong. It's weird.

The 2 don't equate one another. They aren't the same. I have told you, while there is an inheritance relationship(the money metaphor I made before), there is a whole new identity of god in the new testament. One that cannot be equated to the identity that god had in the old testament. So therefore, the God of Christianity =/= god of Judaism.

Seems you're a polytheist and you're just having a hard time dealing with it. I'd be interested to hear if there are any other Christians who will say that the Old Testament wasn't written by the God they worship. If there are, they don't seem to be commenting on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Looks like a matter of perspective to me.

Asfaik, it's a tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i faith that there is only one God, and no god besides God. Hence these religions are called "monotheistic".

When you're a believer of either of these religions, it would thus be "idolatry" if you claimed there was more than just this one God, you'd contradict the most basic tenet of your religion.. If you're Christian, that leaves only two possibilities: Either the Jewish God was not a God (but a mere unreal figment of imagination, a lesser spirit, etc), or it is the same one God Christians are worshipping.

The other view would be the distanced, irreligious view: Gods exist only in the minds of the believers. Hence, when believers of different religions ascribe different attributes to their respective God, they're different Gods. Because in this irreligious view, God is not real, but merely man's different ideas of God. According to this view, Jews worship a different God than Christians, since their theology is different.
 
The other view would be the distanced, irreligious view: Gods exist only in the minds of the believers. Hence, when believers of different religions ascribe different attributes to their respective God, they're different Gods. Because in this irreligious view, God is not real, but merely man's different ideas of God. According to this view, Jews worship a different God than Christians, since their theology is different.
This may be the case, but it contradicts one of the core concepts of Christianity, which is that it's real whether you believe it or not, and those who don't believe in it will suffer for all eternity in hell. Taking an irreligious view towards the Christian God and being a Christian are mutually exclusive.
 
This may be the case, but it contradicts one of the core concepts of Christianity, which is that it's real whether you believe it or not, and those who don't believe in it will suffer for all eternity in hell. Taking an irreligious view towards the Christian God and being a Christian are mutually exclusive.

One does not have to believe in hell to be a Christian. That was stated clearly to me in the Christian thread.
 
One does not have to believe in hell to be a Christian. That was stated clearly to me in the Christian thread.
Someone could say that you don't have to believe in Jesus to be a Christian (which wouldn't even surprise me at this point) but it wouldn't make it true. Heaven and hell are core tenants of Christianity. If you don't believe in them, you aren't a Christian regardless of what label you choose to give yourself.
 
It is especially true for Christianity. It has been used as an excuse for oppression of blacks, gays, jews, muslims, native americans. It was a justification for slavery, holocaust, crusades, inquisition, racism, manifest destiny, class warfare, pedophilia, and countless other atrocities.

There has and will always be people who use an inherently good ideal to advance their politics. Religion has been used by certain selfish people throughout history for evil, just as the notion of freedom, democracy, and science has. None of which are primarily evil practices. Your hate for religion seems narrow, and makes it seem like you don't understand the simple fact that some humans are more zealously self-interested than others.

Point being..... Christianity isn't at fault, HUMANS and their basic faults are.

Stop blaming something you don't fully understand.
 
Someone could say that you don't have to believe in Jesus to be a Christian (which wouldn't even surprise me at this point) but it wouldn't make it true. Heaven and hell are core tenants of Christianity. If you don't believe in them, you aren't a Christian regardless of what label you choose to give yourself.

I was just told again that hell is not in the bible.

I guess the bible can just mean anything. Which makes it mean nothing.
 
Religion is a form of oppression. People in power want to keep people below them stupid and religion is the easiest way to do that. Religion is also a tool to incite violence. Bad people become hero's because they are doing god's work.

Yes. So option 3 and 4 then?

Also, I voted by considering that it is not just Christianity at stake but every religion.
 
Asfaik, it's a tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i faith that there is only one God, and no god besides God. Hence these religions are called "monotheistic".

When you're a believer of either of these religions, it would thus be "idolatry" if you claimed there was more than just this one God, you'd contradict the most basic tenet of your religion.. If you're Christian, that leaves only two possibilities: Either the Jewish God was not a God (but a mere unreal figment of imagination, a lesser spirit, etc), or it is the same one God Christians are worshipping.

The other view would be the distanced, irreligious view: Gods exist only in the minds of the believers. Hence, when believers of different religions ascribe different attributes to their respective God, they're different Gods. Because in this irreligious view, God is not real, but merely man's different ideas of God. According to this view, Jews worship a different God than Christians, since their theology is different.

Hence Horses attribute horse like features to God and so do cows, rats, bugs, etc.
 
Also, I voted by considering that it is not just Christianity at stake but every religion.

And that's a good thing. The sooner we get rid of religion entirely, even if it's just the more fundamentalist, evangelical religions, the better.
 
Point being..... Christianity isn't at fault, HUMANS and their basic faults are.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom