what's your definition of Christianity? here's mine: it means people looking for salvation

[basquebromance]

Priscilla Shirer: Culture's rejection of biblical definitions will have 'staggering' effect on children

this is a fascinating discussion.

Christianity is for minorities mostly!

 

[onefour1]

The true teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[ding]

Priscilla Shirer: Culture's rejection of biblical definitions will have 'staggering' effect on children

this is a fascinating discussion.

Christianity is for minorities mostly!

It was a great read. Not sure if you were being tongue in cheek about the minority part or not.

The reality is the more secular we become as a people the more predictable surprises we will encounter along the way.

 

[deanrd]

I don’t remember reading where Jesus is the as cruel as the Republican Party. Their values are 180° opposite of each other.

 

[Taz]

Christianity is for people looking for meaning in their life.

 

[ding]

Christianity is for people looking for meaning in their life.

All religions are to some degree or another.

The questions where did we come from and why are we here is an artifact of intelligence.

 

[Taz]

Christianity is for people looking for meaning in their life.

All religions are to some degree or another.

The questions where did we come from and why are we here is an artifact of intelligence.

But it's not intelligent to stop your choice on an invisible being that nobody has ever seen, and without real, direct, empirical proof. That's why as society evolves and gets smarter, people are leaving religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
christianity is a political entrapment disguised as a religion with pretentious affiliation with the 1st century. a betrayal for those in need who unwittingly become entrapped by the 4th century bible similar to the encounter in the garden of Eden.

 

[ding]

Christianity is for people looking for meaning in their life.

All religions are to some degree or another.

The questions where did we come from and why are we here is an artifact of intelligence.

But it's not intelligent to stop your choice on an invisible being that nobody has ever seen, and without real, direct, empirical proof. That's why as society evolves and gets smarter, people are leaving religion.

Why not?

They are valid questions and there are only two possible options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

You keep saying that people are leaving religion but they aren’t abandoning their spirituality. Even Darwin agrees that belief in a higher power offers a functional advantage. Otherwise, we would have all become materialist long ago.

As to your contention that there is no proof of God’s existence, the evidence is literally all around and in you. The physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence existing before the material world.

 

[Taz]

Christianity is for people looking for meaning in their life.

All religions are to some degree or another.

The questions where did we come from and why are we here is an artifact of intelligence.

But it's not intelligent to stop your choice on an invisible being that nobody has ever seen, and without real, direct, empirical proof. That's why as society evolves and gets smarter, people are leaving religion.

Why not?

They are valid questions and there are only two possible options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

You keep saying that people are leaving religion but they aren’t abandoning their spirituality. Even Darwin agrees that belief in a higher power offers a functional advantage. Otherwise, we would have all become materialist long ago.

As to your contention that there is no proof of God’s existence, the evidence is literally all around and in you. The physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence existing before the material world.

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t. " You assume that these are the only 2 choices, and by spirit you mean invisible superbeing in another dimension, for which there is zero proof.

 

[ding]

Christianity is for people looking for meaning in their life.

All religions are to some degree or another.

The questions where did we come from and why are we here is an artifact of intelligence.

But it's not intelligent to stop your choice on an invisible being that nobody has ever seen, and without real, direct, empirical proof. That's why as society evolves and gets smarter, people are leaving religion.

Why not?

They are valid questions and there are only two possible options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

You keep saying that people are leaving religion but they aren’t abandoning their spirituality. Even Darwin agrees that belief in a higher power offers a functional advantage. Otherwise, we would have all become materialist long ago.

As to your contention that there is no proof of God’s existence, the evidence is literally all around and in you. The physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence existing before the material world.

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t. " You assume that these are the only 2 choices, and by spirit you mean invisible superbeing in another dimension, for which there is zero proof.

What other options are there than these two options?

Because every other option I have examined reduces down to one of these two lowest common denominators.

I have already told you that the evidence is all around and in you.

I’ve even explained it to you dozens of times. You couldn’t refute one single thing.

 

[Taz]

Christianity is for people looking for meaning in their life.

All religions are to some degree or another.

The questions where did we come from and why are we here is an artifact of intelligence.

But it's not intelligent to stop your choice on an invisible being that nobody has ever seen, and without real, direct, empirical proof. That's why as society evolves and gets smarter, people are leaving religion.

Why not?

They are valid questions and there are only two possible options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

You keep saying that people are leaving religion but they aren’t abandoning their spirituality. Even Darwin agrees that belief in a higher power offers a functional advantage. Otherwise, we would have all become materialist long ago.

As to your contention that there is no proof of God’s existence, the evidence is literally all around and in you. The physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence existing before the material world.

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t. " You assume that these are the only 2 choices, and by spirit you mean invisible superbeing in another dimension, for which there is zero proof.

What other options are there than these two options?

Because every other option I have examined reduces down to one of these two lowest common denominators.

I have already told you that the evidence is all around and in you.

I’ve even explained it to you dozens of times. You couldn’t refute one single thing.

I can't refute your wishful thinking. And basing it on "the proof is all around you" is not empirical proof supported by science.

 

[ding]

All religions are to some degree or another.

The questions where did we come from and why are we here is an artifact of intelligence.

But it's not intelligent to stop your choice on an invisible being that nobody has ever seen, and without real, direct, empirical proof. That's why as society evolves and gets smarter, people are leaving religion.

Why not?

They are valid questions and there are only two possible options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

You keep saying that people are leaving religion but they aren’t abandoning their spirituality. Even Darwin agrees that belief in a higher power offers a functional advantage. Otherwise, we would have all become materialist long ago.

As to your contention that there is no proof of God’s existence, the evidence is literally all around and in you. The physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence existing before the material world.

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t. " You assume that these are the only 2 choices, and by spirit you mean invisible superbeing in another dimension, for which there is zero proof.

What other options are there than these two options?

Because every other option I have examined reduces down to one of these two lowest common denominators.

I have already told you that the evidence is all around and in you.

I’ve even explained it to you dozens of times. You couldn’t refute one single thing.

I can't refute your wishful thinking. And basing it on "the proof is all around you" is not empirical proof supported by science.

My “wishful” thinking is based entirely on empirical evidence.

That’s what the physical laws of nature and the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature are... empirical evidence.

 

[Taz]

But it's not intelligent to stop your choice on an invisible being that nobody has ever seen, and without real, direct, empirical proof. That's why as society evolves and gets smarter, people are leaving religion.

Why not?

They are valid questions and there are only two possible options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

You keep saying that people are leaving religion but they aren’t abandoning their spirituality. Even Darwin agrees that belief in a higher power offers a functional advantage. Otherwise, we would have all become materialist long ago.

As to your contention that there is no proof of God’s existence, the evidence is literally all around and in you. The physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence existing before the material world.

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t. " You assume that these are the only 2 choices, and by spirit you mean invisible superbeing in another dimension, for which there is zero proof.

What other options are there than these two options?

Because every other option I have examined reduces down to one of these two lowest common denominators.

I have already told you that the evidence is all around and in you.

I’ve even explained it to you dozens of times. You couldn’t refute one single thing.

I can't refute your wishful thinking. And basing it on "the proof is all around you" is not empirical proof supported by science.

My “wishful” thinking is based entirely on empirical evidence.

That’s what the physical laws of nature and the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature are... empirical evidence.

You can't scientifically tie them in with an invisible being.

 

[ding]

Why not?

They are valid questions and there are only two possible options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t.

You keep saying that people are leaving religion but they aren’t abandoning their spirituality. Even Darwin agrees that belief in a higher power offers a functional advantage. Otherwise, we would have all become materialist long ago.

As to your contention that there is no proof of God’s existence, the evidence is literally all around and in you. The physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence existing before the material world.

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t. " You assume that these are the only 2 choices, and by spirit you mean invisible superbeing in another dimension, for which there is zero proof.

What other options are there than these two options?

Because every other option I have examined reduces down to one of these two lowest common denominators.

I have already told you that the evidence is all around and in you.

I’ve even explained it to you dozens of times. You couldn’t refute one single thing.

I can't refute your wishful thinking. And basing it on "the proof is all around you" is not empirical proof supported by science.

My “wishful” thinking is based entirely on empirical evidence.

That’s what the physical laws of nature and the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature are... empirical evidence.

You can't scientifically tie them in with an invisible being.

But I did.

Space and time were created from nothing.

Spirit is no thing.

 

[Taz]

"Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn’t. " You assume that these are the only 2 choices, and by spirit you mean invisible superbeing in another dimension, for which there is zero proof.

What other options are there than these two options?

Because every other option I have examined reduces down to one of these two lowest common denominators.

I have already told you that the evidence is all around and in you.

I’ve even explained it to you dozens of times. You couldn’t refute one single thing.

I can't refute your wishful thinking. And basing it on "the proof is all around you" is not empirical proof supported by science.

My “wishful” thinking is based entirely on empirical evidence.

That’s what the physical laws of nature and the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature are... empirical evidence.

You can't scientifically tie them in with an invisible being.

But I did.

Space and time were created from nothing.

Spirit is no thing.

It makes no sense what you say, and it's not scientific at all.

 

[ding]

What other options are there than these two options?

Because every other option I have examined reduces down to one of these two lowest common denominators.

I have already told you that the evidence is all around and in you.

I’ve even explained it to you dozens of times. You couldn’t refute one single thing.

I can't refute your wishful thinking. And basing it on "the proof is all around you" is not empirical proof supported by science.

My “wishful” thinking is based entirely on empirical evidence.

That’s what the physical laws of nature and the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature are... empirical evidence.

You can't scientifically tie them in with an invisible being.

But I did.

Space and time were created from nothing.

Spirit is no thing.

It makes no sense what you say, and it's not scientific at all.

Space and time being created from nothing is based upon science.

No thing existing outside of space and time is based upon science.

 

[Taz]

I can't refute your wishful thinking. And basing it on "the proof is all around you" is not empirical proof supported by science.

My “wishful” thinking is based entirely on empirical evidence.

That’s what the physical laws of nature and the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature are... empirical evidence.

You can't scientifically tie them in with an invisible being.

But I did.

Space and time were created from nothing.

Spirit is no thing.

It makes no sense what you say, and it's not scientific at all.

Space and time being created from nothing is based upon science.

No thing existing outside of space and time is based upon science.

No it's not, and when I ask for a link, you link me to something not relevant and think it is. And then declare victory. Might as well declare it now while you're at it, because you have nothing.

 

[james bond]

Priscilla Shirer: Culture's rejection of biblical definitions will have 'staggering' effect on children

this is a fascinating discussion.

Christianity is for minorities mostly!

Huh? Where do you get, "Christianity is for minorities mostly" by reading the article?

 

[basquebromance]

Priscilla Shirer: Culture's rejection of biblical definitions will have 'staggering' effect on children

this is a fascinating discussion.

Christianity is for minorities mostly!

Huh? Where do you get, "Christianity is for minorities mostly" by reading the article?

i just ad-libbed my own thoughts. you got a problem? the thought referred to my title, not the article