The Religion Thread

true, but its Westward expansion "from sea to shining sea" was justified in the name of progress & anti-paganism/animism/catholicism, as those lifeways/religions were practiced by the Natives & Mexicans that stood in the way.

...and it has nothing to do with Christianity; none of these people were Orthodox and it was their governments that pursued the expansion; if some RCs sanctioned it that would not surprise me but, again, has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

Responding to your links: Secular, Protestant and RC Western propaganda against Orthodoxy is more than 900 years old (in case of the latter) and doesn't impress any Orthodox Christian anymore. While Christianity (again, that's Orthodoxy, not some heretical sect or cult) does occasionally adapt itself to the local culture in its rites (see, e.g. Western Rite today and even in the local Churches in the East there are small differences that have to do with the history and traditions of those places and peoples) and obviously took a lot of practices from the Jews (I already talked about the Israelites in a previous post) to make it easier for the local population to accept it, but, of course, only in a Holy way (i.e. "baptizing" the tradition or rite), the theology is not altered, unlike in Western Christianity where you don't even know that you used to be Orthodox a long time ago anymore, because you keep changing your theologies (yes, plural; there is no unified Protestant or RC theology) as you please...what do you actually believe in? We know what we believe.

Peter the Great changed the ROC rights, installed a new Patriarch, & sent the Old Believers to hiding in Siberia & later abroad.

No one claimed that the relationship between the Church and the State was always perfect, but it was certainly far more balanced than in the West; after all, we live in a fallen world and not in paradise. The naming of a patriarch by the ruler is nothing new and goes back to the Byzantine Empire; that doesn't mean that the one named has to accept or is the ruler's slave and there are many cases where patriarchs went against the ruler if they thought the ruler was acting against God, even if it meant his imprisonment and torture. The patriarch is also not some form of Western-style pope but merely "first among equals" and in Orthodoxy in general we place far more weight on the laity, which ultimately preserves the faith even against heretical bishops and patriarchs and faithless rulers.
Old Believers are a group of dangerous sects with very variable beliefs (so here again we have the same problem: what do they actually believe?) who in their pride chose to rebel against the Church...they needed to be dealt with but not everything that happened to them was done in the right way. Today, even though they are almost completely gone and thus irrelevant, they are a darling of Western and liberal anti-Orthodox press and organizations and the myths surrounding their oppression grow ever more adventurous.

Patriarchs Alexis & now Kirill was/is working hand in glove with KGB/FSB & Putin.

Hmm...potential suspects for poisoning Navalny?  

Regarding future development of religious groups in China: I agree that Orthodox parishes are small in numbers there right now and I admit that overall the Evangelicals are still better than we are at missionizing (to our shame) but the notoriously anti-Orthodox Pew research center and their oh-so-scientific "estimates" are like asking some old Gypsie lady to look into a crystal ball for you. Some people believe the Apocalypse is nigh and thus China will be turning Orthodox soon but personally I think it may well be 1k+ years away (really, I have no idea...people have been prophesying that "the End is nigh" for thousands of years). When I was talking about the growth of Orthodoxy I was primarily referring to Eastern Europe (incl. Russia) as "the East", the West (we are still small there, as well, but growing while, at least in Western Europe, RC and Prots are losing members) and Africa. There may also be a reuniting with Oriental Orthodox in the future (there were some talks) but they obviously have to fix their theology first.

Indeed, the Chinese venerate the Dragon (big flying snake) since according to their believes it controls rains essential to rice cultivation, while for the Christianity it represents evil that gave an apple to Eve & fought the righteous saintly heroes.
Don't expect most of them to convert/accept the E. Orthodoxy

The Dragon has nothing to do with the "snake" in the Garden of Eden...the "snake" was a spiritual entity (the Devil), not an actual snake (hint: actual snakes can't talk).
It's true that sometimes the Devil is symbolized as a snake or even a snake with wings (though in proper Icons it is always completely black, which is not normally the case with "Chinese Dragons") but even in Eastern Europe you have traditions that regard Dragons as being more "neutral" or even benevolent beings, such as in the traditions of Bulgaria or Serbia, both Orthodox countries.

E. Orthodoxy which is based on earlier Egyptian theology

It doesn't matter how much drivel these anti-Orthodox authors come up with...one of those links even talks about the "judeo-christian religion" why don't you go ask an Orthodox Jew what he thinks of the concept of Judeo-Christian Religion? This fantasy was invented by Protestants in the last century to destroy RC and Orthodoxy through Ecumenism. Just because there are similarities between religions doesn't mean that they're all the same; it does, however, point to a common origin, which is part of our narrative and world view.

Even in Russian built Harbin, the Saint Sophia Cathedral is now a museum.

No surprises there...the Chinese government doesn't like religion because it has a religion of its own to sell and free and independent people can be harder to control than mindless consumerist drones. In EO parishes in China there is a mandatory registration of all participants for every liturgy with full name etc. that has to be given to the government.

...and it has nothing to do with Christianity; none of these people were Orthodox.. 

I just used as an example on how religion is being used to justify subjugation of others. They weren't the 1st: Turks, Arabs, Crusaders, Spaniards, & Portuguese done it before.

We know what we believe.

don't tell me there was no internal bloody strife within ur church in Byzantium.

even in Eastern Europe you have traditions that regard Dragons as being more "neutral" or even benevolent beings, such as in the traditions of Bulgaria or Serbia, both Orthodox countries.

that came from pre-Christian believes.

why don't you go ask an Orthodox Jew what he thinks of the concept of Judeo-Christian Religion?

I don't care what he or any1 else may think; the fact is that Christianity (& Islam) came from Judaism, just like Buddhism & Jainism came from Hinduism & Confucianism came from Taoism.

Just because there are similarities between religions doesn't mean that they're all the same...

I never stated that they r the same.

Old Believers are a group of dangerous sects with very variable beliefs (so here again we have the same problem: what do they actually believe?) who in their pride chose to rebel against the Church...

they split into sects after being outlawed & driven into exile; the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population so Peter the Great could concentrate on forcing reforms & building of an empire.

the Chinese government doesn't like religion because it has a religion of its own to sell and free and independent people can be harder to control..

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/johann_wolfgang_von_goeth_134023


Religion is what weak people need- those who follow it r also putting themselves under others' control as they r constrained by dogmas, tabus, & other restrictions that often do more harm than good.
 
“Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.”  https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/116680-organized-religion-is-a-sham-and-a-crutch-for-weak-minded
I'm not here to debate religious matters in depth- it's off topic & isn't relevant to the geopolitics of China. 
Having said that, the CCP is absolutely right to safeguard her population from infiltration by Western based religious organisations that r being used to weaken China from within. 

I just used as an example on how religion is being used to justify subjugation of others. They weren't the 1st: Turks, Arabs, Crusaders, Spaniards, & Portuguese done it before.

It had nothing to do with the points I was making and was all along just a part of a larger anti-religions rant by you, which you now finally made explicit in the last paragraph of your last post. Apart from the fact that I'm not here to defend all religions, are you honestly going to claim that non-religious ideas never caused any harm, including genocide? Forgot about the Nazis already? Or the British with their Darwinian "the English male is the peak of evolution"-style racial supremacy?

don't tell me there was no internal bloody strife within ur church in Byzantium.

Sure there was and the heretics lost. Since then, for more than 1200 years, no more Ecumenical Councils were necessary because the ones that took place made the theology explicit enough that any further heretics were dealt with based on what was written.

that came from pre-Christian believes.

Probably; my point was that the existence of traditions with "benevolent dragons" does not mean the nation can't be Christian.

I don't care what he or any1 else may think; the fact is that Christianity (& Islam) came from Judaism

Wrong. Christianity came from the Israelite traditions; some Jews back then would call that Judaism but that's not supported by the Old Testament, which establishes that the covenant is not made with Jews but Israelites (in fact, throughout the Old Testament non-Jews become important messengers and servants of God and are included in the covenant as Israelites; no-where are "Jews" referred to as the "Chosen People", even though both terms are used in the Bible); modern Talmudic Judaism, which is what is being referred to by such "brilliant authors" is not just post-Christian but also extremely anti-Christian. Even Messianic Judaism is anti-Christian and Islam claims to not just be the heir of the Israelite traditions but also of Christianity...according to the Quran Jesus was a prophet of Allah and the Apostles were Muslims.

they split into sects after being outlawed & driven into exile;

If what they believe is true then the world must end any day now or has already ended, since "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church" but they sure do seem to have prevailed against the Old Believers.

the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population so Peter the Great could concentrate on forcing reforms & building of an empire.

Repeating it does not make it true. As I already told you, we are not Roman Catholic and a Patriarch is not a Pope; he is not an infallible supreme ruler. The Body of Christ is the Church, which means it is primarily the laity (since there are way more of us than all the Priests and Bishops combined, who are not privileged before God); so when you say that "the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population" you mean that the population was a tool of government control over the population, which doesn't make any sense.
We don't change our theology for geopolitical, or any other reasons, unlike the West, starting with the infamous "filioque" pushed by the Franks, especially starting with Charlemagne. If the ruler is Orthodox, good; if the ruler is not or is too much of a sinner, that's not good but it doesn't matter since we'll still remain Orthodox as we have for two thousand years, even as a majority of bishops, including the patriarch, became heretics in some periods; we will keep the faith always and no government or heretic inside or outside the Church can change that.

Now on to the meat:
First: your "brainyquote"...argumentum ad auctoritatem (a logical fallacy); why should I care what some Westerner says? By what standard, exactly, do you determine whether someone is free or not? How do you define "free"? How do you justify, in your world view, that someone should be free or not free? (Also: what, exactly, is your world view? I suspect atheistic materialism)

Second:

Religion is what weak people need- those who follow it r also putting themselves under others' control as they r constrained by dogmas, tabus, & other restrictions that often do more harm than good.

Apart from the ad hominem this is ridiculous on multiple levels:
   1) since you clearly have a position (a "world view" as we are debating on the paradigm level here) you are also constrained by dogmas / taboos / other restrictions (at the very least some form of scientism/empiricism as it seems)
   2) therefore your implicit assertion that persons constrained by dogmas etc. are "weak" would apply to yourself and not separate you from the group you want to criticize, thus turning you into a hypocrite
   3) how do you derive the moral standard that decides what is "good" and "bad", what is "weak" and "strong"? I strongly suspect it's completely arbitrary and simply based on "muh feelings"
and more:

Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business.

And what are you doing here, exactly? Are you not "sticking your nose into my business" spreading lies about my faith, telling me I and my friends are weak according to you, the "enlightened atheist"? Who is in control in the West right now? Is it Orthodox Christians or (mostly) liberal atheists? If I, as a Christian, wanted to keep my children out of school so they don't get turned into someone like you by the propaganda there they would literally lock me up and take my children away, as has happened to other Christians in Germany. So it seems to me it is people like you who are part of a sham (completely unjustified, incoherent world view), sticking your nose into other people's business while having "strength in numbers"; I could also say that "your incoherent world view is nothing but a crutch for weak-minded people with insecurities about their sinful lifestyle", which would perfectly accord with your arbitrary "Golden Rule morality - Treat others as you'd want them to treat you", but I'm going to take that back since I'm not here to insult the people on this forum.

Third:

The religious right wants to tell people how to live.

Coming from someone in the West I can only laugh...you need to wake up. Liberals (who are mostly atheists, as well) are literally trying to tell everyone else how to live all the time (e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=qUm8h_ON8qo talking about an article in one of the largest German newspapers that literally titles "Who means to do good for the Russians needs to demand their liberalization" as just one of the latest examples)...along with telling us how we're all sexist, racist, patriarchal and should eat more soy and have more gay sex and commit more adultery and kill more babies etc. etc. etc...liberals are the worst moralizers because they have completely arbitrary morals combined with no humility or self-reflection whatsoever and thus get lost in endless layers of hypocrisy and self-contradiction.

I'm not here to debate religious matters in depth- it's off topic & isn't relevant to the geopolitics of China.

First, since China is one of the most anti-Christian places on the planet today and this stance has geopolitical implications, not to speak of the implications of the mainstream world view within a country on its military and geopolitical development (just look at the soyboy German army, which is now adopting genderized ranks, the English equivalent of which would be e.g. "Captainess" as well as endlessly going back and forth on whether Germany should have armed drones or not, because air strikes are patriarchal) and, second, you started this by deciding that some Protestant-spinoff cultish heretic who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and started a genocide was a proper representative of Christianity, which I simply pointed out as false and then you turned it into a more extensive rant about the "evils of Christianity" while claiming that Patriarch Kyrill is an FSB agent and finally into a generalized "religion is a crutch for weak-minded people" ad hominem et alia fallacies feast...I'm happy to let it go but at this point an apology would be nice.

Having said that, the CCP is absolutely right to safeguard her population from infiltration by Western based religious organisations that r being used to weaken China from within.

I agree, but there aren't only "Western Christians" in China and Orthodox Christianity would absolutely strengthen the country.

are you honestly going to claim that non-religious ideas never caused any harm, including genocide? Forgot about the Nazis already? Or the British with their Darwinian "the English male is the peak of evolution"-style racial supremacy?

 -those had religious, even if not Christian, attributes as well.

Sure there was and the heretics lost. Since then, for more than 1200 years, no more Ecumenical Councils were necessary because the ones that took place made the theology explicit enough that any further heretics were dealt with based on what was written.

-how sweet, they decided what every1 should believe in & therefore those who won't conform didn't have the right to live & think differently. How about the Judaic/Christian dictums "do not kill" & "love ur enemies", were they made heretical also?

Probably; my point was that the existence of traditions with "benevolent dragons" does not mean the nation can't be Christian.

- the Chinese & other Asians have a lot more traditions to give up besides dragons to become truly Christian as u want them to be.

Wrong. Christianity came from the Israelite traditions; some Jews back then would call that Judaism but that's not supported by the Old Testament, which establishes that the covenant is not made with Jews but Israelites..

-they became Jews after leaving their homes in Palestine & mixing with others, while retaining Judaism as their faith & lifeway.

If what they believe is true then the world must end any day now or has already ended, since "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church" but they sure do seem to have prevailed against the Old Believers.- that's not relevant to my argument; their persecution by the ROC & the government is.

when you say that "the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population" you mean that the population was a tool of government control over the population, ..-the laity could believe whatever it wanted as long as it did what it was told, didn't stand in the way of the powers that be & kept quiet.

If the ruler is Orthodox, good; if the ruler is not or is too much of a sinner,..- by what criteria/definition? this is another tool of control of the faithful who give power to clerics to rule over them by defining & interpreting what is sin & what is a virtue. 

..even as a majority of bishops, including the patriarch, became heretics in some periods;..-so much for the strength of their character & the overall Orthodox theology in general. 

By what standard, exactly, do you determine whether someone is free or not? How do you define "free"? How do you justify, in your world view, that someone should be free or not free?- freedom is a natural state of an individual, not under restriction of any imposed dogma on how he should think & behave, & not subjected to intrusion into his personal life. 

(Also: what, exactly, is your world view? I suspect atheistic materialism)- that's not relevant & is none of ur business; worry about ur own problems & don't stick ur nose where it doesn't belong.

you are also constrained by dogmas / taboos / other restrictions (at the very least some form of scientism/empiricism as it seems)- no I'm not; don't judge me by ur own standards.

   3) how do you derive the moral standard that decides what is "good" and "bad", what is "weak" and "strong"?-this has nothing to do with morality of any kind; everything is relative. However, there must be something wrong with a religion that allows to arbitrarily set & impose dogmas & rules that leaves so many victims in its wake.

And what are you doing here, exactly? Are you not "sticking your nose into my business" spreading lies about my faith,
telling me I and my friends are weak according to you, the "enlightened atheist"?- this shows that ur religion didn't teach u how to be objective & be above getting into polemics. I'm not at all concerned what ur believes r, as long as they don't cause u to violate/abuse the rights of others.

So it seems to me it is people like you who are part of a sham (completely unjustified, incoherent world view),..-since u don't know what my worldview is, u r not to judge me, much less to engage in personal attacks here.

..liberals are the worst moralizers because they have completely arbitrary morals combined with no humility or self-reflection whatsoever and thus get lost in endless layers of hypocrisy and self-contradiction.- I'm not 1 of them, but the same can be said about many Christian clerics who don't do what they preach.

First, since China is one of the most anti-Christian places on the planet today and this stance has geopolitical implications,..-we can & should discuss geopolitical implications w/o debating religious matters; as a matter of fact, I would now ask the mods to remove these posts elsewhere to keep this thread on topic. 

second, you started this by deciding that some Protestant-spinoff cultish heretic who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and started a genocide was a proper representative of Christianity,..-proper or not, it wasn't my point at all; China was victimised & weakened by the West by its proselytizing. If u have trouble with English comprehension, I can PM u in Russian next time.  

..claiming that Patriarch Kirill is an FSB agent..-Why should it offend u? Even if he isn't & never was, he's doing a good job for United Russia Party & Putin so far.
 
I'm happy to let it go but at this point an apology would be nice.- hold ur breath; if u really need it, I'm sorry for u!

I agree, but there aren't only "Western Christians" in China and Orthodox Christianity would absolutely strengthen the country.

u can thank the Mongols & Tartars who used Chinese engineers to take Russian cities for not oppressing the ROC. 
In retrospect, the Orthodox Christianity could do a lot better in preventing Russia from sliding into rebellions, serfdom, civil wars, revolutions, banditism/crime, drunkenness, famines, low life expectancy, oligarchism, & loss of territories. The Russian Empire was built upon incorporating other peoples into the Russian World, but it didn't work well- otherwise the USSR wouldn't have imploded. 

In contrast, China had been invaded dozens of times, but the invaders themselves got Sinicized- thanks to enduring Confucian & Taoist/Buddhist tradition that sustained her & influenced all the others in E. Asia for millenia. Indeed, instead of suggesting she adopts Orthodox Christianity, how about some soul searching & considering adopting Confucianism, Taoism & Buddhism? The latter, of the Tibetan variety, is already practiced in Buryatia.

-those had religious, even if not Christian, attributes as well.

Apart from the fact that you've behaved worse than most Evangelical zealots in your last posts (how's that for showing "religious attributes"?) it doesn't matter what religions they may or may not have referenced in their ideology. As I said many times now: I'm not here to defend some strawman you set up or some arbitrary religion or cult, but the only truth: Orthodox Christianity! Besides, if I went insane and shot a bunch of people "in the name of Christianity" right now it wouldn't tarnish Christianity because there's nothing in (actual) Christianity telling me to do that. In the case of atheistic ideologies, however, (Liberalism, Communism, Fascism) you will always have genocides (French Revolution, "cleansings", Holocaust) because you don't appreciate the value of a human being, because for you "everything is relative" (which is self-contradictory, as I'll explain below), so there is no universal moral standard telling you e.g. "do not murder". Orthodox Christian doctrine has never caused a genocide anywhere.

-how sweet, they decided what every1 should believe in & therefore those who won't conform didn't have the right to live & think differently. How about the Judaic/Christian dictums "do not kill" & "love ur enemies", were they made heretical also?

I didn't say there were killed, just that they lost; of course from your perspective you naturally jump to genocide of the opponent, no surprises there. The bloodshed was mostly perpetrated by the heretics (e.g. iconoclasts) and violence outside of pure self-defense or protecting the innocent on the part of the righteous was rare.

- the Chinese & other Asians have a lot more traditions to give up besides dragons to become truly Christian as u want them to be.

I actually lived in China for more than a year as well as other parts of Asia and I can tell you that especially in China there are barely any traditions left thanks to the rabid spreading of consumerism (for most Chinese it's all about money these days) and the atheism that is forced on the people by the ruling elites. Additionally, as I've already said, Orthodoxy has no problem adapting to the local culture, translating the scriptures and liturgies so the people can understand and even creating entire new rites of worship that fit more with the local culture. The only thing that doesn't change is the theology. Also: do I want the Chinese and everyone else to be Orthodox? Yes. Do they need to need to be Orthodox "as I want"? No; just in case there is a misunderstanding here.

-they became Jews after leaving their homes in Palestine & mixing with others, while retaining Judaism as their faith & lifeway.

That's also wrong, since "Judaism" was something that developed and not just monolithically...there are many different kinds of "Judaism" that came about but it is a thoroughly ethnic religion, which is not what God intended.

by what criteria/definition?

Do you still not get it? By the Orthodox criteria...this is why it's important to have a universal, unchanging standard.

-the laity could believe whatever it wanted as long as it did what it was told, didn't stand in the way of the powers that be & kept quiet.
this is another tool of control of the faithful who give power to clerics to rule over them by defining & interpreting what is sin & what is a virtue.

This is self-contradicting...which is it? Do "the clerics rule over the laity" telling them what to believe or can the "laity believe whatever it wanted"?

so much for the strength of their character & the overall Orthodox theology in general.

Connecting to my previous point: you acknowledge that my assertion that in Orthodoxy it is the Body of Christ (His Church, which is mostly the laity) that keeps the faith; as long as the ruler and the clerics fulfil their function properly there is no problem; otherwise the laity and the minority of faithful clerics will keep the faith safe against the heretics until better times, as has happened many times in our history. We don't "go with the flow" and change our theology just because the mainstream demands it, like the "Western Churches" have done; this is why we are still Orthodox and you are not, which, contrary to your assertion, clearly shows the strength of Orthodoxy in comparison to the ever-changing and self-destructing Western theologies (which, btw., is where your relativism comes from in the first place...it is eternal revolution).

freedom is a natural state of an individual

Hardly. If that were true problems like drug addiction, depression, other kinds of pain and suffering, disease and death etc. wouldn't exist. The only freedom possible for us comes through a rejection of "the world" i.e. the passions that beset us; only through Christ and Theosis can we truly be free. And to engage in this process or not is our free decision.

not under restriction of any imposed dogma on how he should think & behave, & not subjected to intrusion into his personal life.

That is only possible to the extent that you can become a hermit somewhere deep in the forest or desert, which many Saints have done (although even then you will live with dogmas - the ones you impose on yourself). If you wish to live among other people there is always going to be a common set of rules and standards (dogma) that will restrict you. There is no system that gets rid of that.

no I'm not; don't judge me by ur own standards.

Of course you are and I don't say this based on my standards but simple logic: there is no epistemological basis without a framework within which to think about the world; at the very least, this framework will be part of the dogma of anyone capable of acquiring knowledge.

that's not relevant & is none of ur business; worry about ur own problems & don't stick ur nose where it doesn't belong.

Of course you don't want to talk about your world view, because it's utterly incoherent (as I'll show below)...that doesn't mean that it's not relevant since you are criticising mine and I am questioning the basis on which you are building this critique; you not wanting to answer is simply evasion and not an argument.

And here comes the core issue: relativism...the following statements you made, just in one reply as an example, are universal claims and thus not relative:

this has nothing to do with morality of any kind;

everything is relative.

However, there must be something wrong with a religion that allows to arbitrarily set & impose dogmas & rules that leaves so many victims in its wake.

Yes, the claim that "everything is relative" is a universal claim and thus entirely self-contradicting. This is the typical philosophical position of Westerners today, because no one teaches you basic logic and philosophy anymore (by design, as I've mentioned before...your secular High Priests even tell you not to look into philosophy, because then you might notice how much BS you are fed). And of course this has everything to do with morality...do you honestly think that saying "there must be something wrong with a religion [...]", "don't stick ur nose where it doesn't belong", "Religion is what weak people need" are not moral claims? How do you determine where "my nose belongs" or doesn't belong? How did you decide that "some people are weak and thus need religion"? And of course these are all not just moral claims but also universal claims...I see this hypocrisy everyday: atheists telling me that I can't criticize their world view because "everything is relative", "everyone has their own truths" (both universal claims, btw.) and then turning around and telling me what to do (like not criticize their beliefs). It's pure Sophistry.

If everything is relative and thus nothing universally true, then why are you trying to claim this as a universal truth?

this shows that ur religion didn't teach u how to be objective & be above getting into polemics. I'm not at all concerned what ur believes r, as long as they don't cause u to violate/abuse the rights of others.
-since u don't know what my worldview is, u r not to judge me, much less to engage in personal attacks here.

Are you kidding me? I literally reflected your own statements back to you to show you how you are treating me...this is what I meant by a complete lack of humility and self-reflection. Go read your own posts about how "religious people are a weak-minded mob, part of a sham, telling others what to do", before you cry about "personal attacks".

-we can & should discuss geopolitical implications w/o debating religious matters; as a matter of fact, I would now ask the mods to remove these posts elsewhere to keep this thread on topic.

I have no problem with moving the posts, but everyone can see (and I've screenshotted this now) how I simply pointed out that your assertion about a cultish heretic, who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and engaged in a genocide, being a proper representative of Christianity is false...then you went off on your anti-religious rants (which: why are you doing it in the first place, if "everything is relative"? How can it be a universal fact that "religion is bad"?).

If u have trouble with English comprehension, I can PM u in Russian next time.  

Again, so much for no personal attacks...if I were to, again, apply your own stated moral standard (Golden Rule) to this, I should be telling you how you're not able to understand my points, but I won't.

Why should it offend u? Even if he isn't & never was, he's doing a good job for United Russia Party & Putin so far.

It doesn't offend me at all, because I can't take it seriously...but you're welcome to actually present proof of how he is an FSB agent.

if u really need it, I'm sorry for u!

More condescension while whining about personal attacks.

u can thank the Mongols & Tartars who used Chinese engineers to take Russian cities for not oppressing the ROC.

They did oppress it, they just didn't destroy it.

In retrospect, the Orthodox Christianity could do a lot better in preventing Russia from sliding into rebellions, serfdom, civil wars, revolutions, banditism/crime, drunkenness, famines, low life expectancy, oligarchism, & loss of territories.

Why don't you compare the territory held by the pagan Kievan Rus before Christianization and today (or, if you like, before the October Revolution)? It seems to me they've done pretty well and yes, this is obviously due, in part, to the stability that a coherent and true system of faith provides.
As I already pointed out, Orthodoxy is anti-rebellious and anti-revolutionary...just because God allowed degenerate Westerners to spread their harmful ideologies to Russia due to Russians not being strong enough in their faith to reject that (watch Солнечный удар (2014)...perfect movie to show that) doesn't mean that Orthodoxy isn't true.
Banditism/crime and drunkenness are also strictly opposed by the Church, while atheism actively drives people toward those things.
Serfdom in Russia was not slavery like in the US or South America or, even worse, the Muslim countries (which Orthodox Christians actually helped end...see, e.g. the conquest of Crimea, the then slave-trading center of Eurasia, by Catherine the Great)...the serfs didn't belong to the land owners directly but were tied to the land and couldn't just be murdered or starved but actually had to be cared for by the land owner (there was even a law that land owners were not allowed to free serfs during times of famine, so they couldn't get around the responsibility of feeding the serfs on their land, even if it meant they had to sell all their assets to pay for the expensive food, which was high in demand).

The Russian Empire was built upon incorporating other peoples into the Russian World, but it didn't work well- otherwise the USSR wouldn't have imploded.
In contrast, China had been invaded dozens of times, but the invaders themselves got Sinicized- thanks to enduring Confucian & Taoist/Buddhist tradition that sustained her & influenced all the others in E. Asia for millenia.

Of course it worked well...there are > 50 ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation today, all russified. The USSR was not the Russian Empire...how can that not be obvious?

Indeed, instead of suggesting she adopts Orthodox Christianity, how about some soul searching & considering adopting Confucianism, Taoism & Buddhism? The latter, of the Tibetan variety, is already practiced in Buryatia.

Because all of them are false. I didn't end up Orthodox by birth (although I was a "cultural Christian") but actually grew up an atheist. It is only later in life that I did "soul searching" and considered many different world views and religions until becoming convinced that Orthodox Christianity is the truth. But of course it's no surprise that you're trying to push other religions...Voltaire also didn't mind religions in general, as long as they subjugated themselves to his ideology; he wrote "ecrasez l'infame" under all his letters because he hated the Truth, which is Jesus Christ, and wanted to destroy Christianity while promoting "religious freedom" (you're free to practice what you want but only where we can't see or we kill you - the infamous "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood - or Death" liberty to do as we do or die, equality and brotherhood for all who think like us and death for everyone else...Napoleon and Hitler were also quite enamoured with Islam, because it preaches falsehood and sin, just like their ideologies).

The Chinese people are not the Chinese government and the fact that the government is suppressing all sorts of different movements and religions there, including ones that have more of an "Asian tradition", like Falun Gong, shows that this is much more about remaining in power and perpetuating harmful ideologies than promoting a strong culture and preserving traditions. Like any revolutionary system it is going to continue to be rather unstable and will inevitably collapse. My hope is that Russia regains her faith in the truth and serves as a beacon and example for other nations in the future, including for China.
That is really all I want to say in terms of strictly-on-topic comments...the only reason I keep refuting your anti-religious rants is because of a (very faint) hope that you will actually change your mind and because there might be other people reading this and perhaps use some of what I said to reconsider their own world view if they are not Orthodox.

I'm not here to defend some strawman you set up or some arbitrary religion or cult, but the only truth: Orthodox Christianity!

to the Asians, there's more than 1 truth, & religious traditions r not necessarily mutually exclusive. Thus, Orthodox Christianity won't be accepted by most of them w/o changing it to something else, like Islam & Buddhism were changed centuries ago. 

Orthodox Christian doctrine has never caused a genocide anywhere.- including during the Russian Empire's wars/colonizations in Alaska, Caucasus & Jewish pogroms? I didn't say there were killed, just that they lost;..-even if some were killed or died later as a result, it's unacceptable & not an  excuse.

Orthodoxy has no problem adapting to the local culture, translating the scriptures and liturgies so the people can understand and even creating entire new rites of worship that fit more with the local culture. The only thing that doesn't change is the theology.- 
why should they adopt something that conflicts with their worldview that formed & kept evolving over millennia w/o it? To most of them, the game isn't going to be worth the candle. 

That's also wrong, since "Judaism" was something that developed and not just monolithically...there are many different kinds of "Judaism" that came about but it is a thoroughly ethnic religion, which is not what God intended.- wrong; there is only 1 Judaism, although with many divisions added since its inception. How do u know "what God intended"? If u claim that God speaks through u or ur teachers, as many other Christians do, that's monopolization of truth. That alone disqualifies the rest of the Orthodox theology.

Do you still not get it? By the Orthodox criteria...this is why it's important to have a universal, unchanging standard.- that again contradicts the Oriental worldview: the only thing permanent is change. For that, there r Yin-Yang & 5 elements theories, besides the I Ching (Book of Changes), the Tao Te Ching, & the Taoist Canon.

This is self-contradicting...which is it? Do "the clerics rule over the laity" telling them what to believe or can the "laity believe whatever it wanted"?- They could hide their beliefs but were still being ruled, just like the Jews of Spain & its colonies who converted to Catholicism but still secretly practiced Judaism, or those Christians who paid taxes to Muslim rulers to be allowed to worship, but subjected to the Holy Inquisition or Sharia laws. "Those who work with their hands r being ruled; those who work with with their heads rule" https://www.amazon.com/Concept-Contemporary-Michigan-Classics-Chinese/dp/0892641444

..the strength of Orthodoxy in comparison to the ever-changing and self-destructing Western theologies..-but in comparison with Oriental traditions it's weak, as it's religious philosophy based on the Greek Platonism, while the real world operates well outside of its logical constraints. 

The only freedom possible for us comes through a rejection of "the world" i.e. the passions that beset us; only through Christ and Theosis can we truly be free. And to engage in this process or not is our free decision.- what happened to the idea that "God is within us", & "we all have a free will, as God intended"?

If you wish to live among other people there is always going to be a common set of rules and standards (dogma) that will restrict you. 
wrong again- read the definition of Dogma!

How do you determine where "my nose belongs" or doesn't belong?- I get to decide whether ur actions concerning me r appropriate or not, not u.

How did you decide that "some people are weak and thus need religion"?- if they were strong, they would worship their own bodies, taking care of their health & well being, instead of just bending together for prayers & doing some charitable work they find helpful to their consciousness, and preaching to others in the hope to convert them to satisfy their egos. 

If everything is relative and thus nothing universally true, then why are you trying to claim this as a universal truth?- "everything is relative & ever changing" is the universal truth.

Are you kidding me? I literally reflected your own statements back to you to show you how you are treating me...- u r reminding me of those Muslims who get easily offended by criticism of their religion. It's not my goal to berate any1 here; if my being objective when in presenting arguments is so offencive, that only shows ur own shallowness & mediocrity.

your assertion about a cultish heretic, who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and engaged in a genocide, being a proper representative of Christianity is false...-I never claimed that he was "a proper representative of Christianity"- don't ever put words in my mouth again! he was a manifestation of a common trend of religions mutually influencing each other.

then you went off on your anti-religious rants (which: why are you doing it in the first place, if "everything is relative"? How can it be a universal fact that "religion is bad"?).- it can be good in some instances & bad in others, & I didn't say anywhere that religions r always bad; they play their role but they were misused & abused more often than not, in both East & West.

Again, so much for no personal attacks...if I were to, again, apply your own stated moral standard (Golden Rule) to this, I should be telling you how you're not able to understand my points, but I won't.- me "not understanding" ur points is in ur judgement; they r shallow & every easy to understand, as to me, it's ur worldview that is incoherent. 

It doesn't offend me at all, because I can't take it seriously...but you're welcome to actually present proof of how he is an FSB agent.-whether he is or not, it's not essential/relevant. In Russia, all high ranking hierarchs even below the Patriarch work with & report to the special services as needed. That's an axiom.

They did oppress it, they just didn't destroy it.- even if they did oppress it, not hard enough to allow Sergey of Radonezh to become the spiritual head of the ROC & help Dmitry Donskoi to fight them.

Why don't you compare the territory held by the pagan Kievan Rus before Christianization and today (or, if you like, before the October Revolution)? It seems to me they've done pretty well and yes, this is obviously due, in part, to the stability that a coherent and true system of faith provides.- the Mongols took fragmented post-Kievan Rus the ROC couldn't hold together; Alaska & California possessions with its converts had to be sold before others took it by force. Ukraine,  Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan & the Baltics with large Orthodox populations were lost during the USSR breakup; wars in Georgia & Ukraine couldn't be stopped by the ROC; today's RF areas beyond the Urals is sparsely populated & easy to hold. Not much to boast about! 

Banditism/crime and drunkenness are also strictly opposed by the Church,..- The Orthodox Christianity was chosen by Count Vladimir because it didn't prohibit drinking of alcohol which was popular even then. 
Serfdom in Russia was not slavery like in the US or South America or, even worse, the Muslim countries..- but it was in place till 1861, much later than in the rest of Europe & many other places.

The USSR was not the Russian Empire...how can that not be obvious?- it was, under a different name. Refer to the Soviet Anthem.

Because all of them are false.- by categorically stating that, u confirm in their minds that it's not worthy of converting into. People's nature stays the same- even of those who allegedly killed the self-declared son of God & later repented & now proselytizing faith in him; such people shouldn't be trusted. Their good intentions, if that was ever the case, paved the road to hell for the Ms of those they converted & their descendants.

But of course it's no surprise that you're trying to push other religions...-only for the sake of the argument; I'm just beating u with at own game. 

Napoleon and Hitler were also quite enamoured with Islam, because it preaches falsehood and sin, just like their ideologies).- they both fought the British & needed Muslim allies. Under the Ottoman Turks, Christians & Jews lived better than under kings & tsars. What sins does Islam preaches? To the Muslims, Christians r the bigger sinners.

the Chinese government ..is suppressing all sorts of different movements and religions there, including ones that have more of an "Asian tradition", like Falun Gong, shows that this is much more about remaining in power and perpetuating harmful ideologies than promoting a strong culture and preserving traditions. - it views itself as the guardian of state unity; once the ideology cracks & yields to religious sects, the whole gov. structure will collapse. That's why the CCP owns & controls the PLA, not the state.

Like any revolutionary system it is going to continue to be rather unstable and will inevitably collapse.- not if they transform into nationalistic KMT-like run state. China may later even become a confederation with regional autonomies but 1 capital.

My hope is that Russia regains her faith in the truth and serves as a beacon and example for other nations in the future, including for China.- if/when that happens, the Chinese will regain their original faiths 1st before adopting anything else from unpredictable Russia.

to the Asians, there's more than 1 truth

That's just what some Asians want you to think...as I already pointed out in one of my previous posts the perennial element in parts of Hinduism, for example, is just superficial; deep down they have their own theology and metaphysics that is not perennial.

Russian Empire's wars/colonizations in Alaska, Caucasus & Jewish pogroms?
even if some were killed or died later as a result, it's unacceptable & not an  excuse.

I didn't say that I was excusing it, but the Orthodox Church does not wage war...unlike Muslims or Roman Catholics we don't have an extensively developed "Just War" or "Holy War" doctrine; the Church will, however, support a war led by the state if it is defensive or helps protect the innocent or other Orthodox nations...this I have also already pointed out and pointed you to a link where you can read about the official ROC position on this stuff...if you're just going to repeat the same old lies again and again, despite me debunking you with proof then I'll have to call you a troll.

why should they adopt something that conflicts with their worldview that formed & kept evolving over millennia w/o it? To most of them, the game isn't going to be worth the candle.

Because it's actually coherent and because most of them don't really care about old traditions anymore anyway "thanks to" the Communists. Whether it's worth it for them or not will be their decision and not for some anti-religious Westerner to decide. Besides, if everything is relative, how do you even know what things are worth it for them or not? What universal standard that can be applied both to you and them are you using here, if universal standards can't exist?

wrong; there is only 1 Judaism , although with many divisions added since its inception. How do u know "what God intended"? If u claim that God speaks through u or ur teachers, as many other Christians do, that's monopolization of truth. That alone disqualifies the rest of the Orthodox theology.

Because God says so in the Bible (e.g. Rom 10:12-14, Gal 3:28-29 or the entire chapter Romans 11 which gives background even); the rest is just another straw man you drew up as well as an attempt at a fallacy fallacy (yes, those exist; look it up).

that again contradicts the Oriental worldview: the only thing is permanent is change. For that, there r Yin-Yang & 5 elements theories, besides the I Ching (Book of Changes), the Tao Te Ching, & the Taoist Canon.

That is self-contradicting again: if the basic principle in the world is eternal change then this principle must also eventually change, therefore inducing stability and contradicting itself.

They could hide their believes but were still being ruled, just like the Jews of Spain & its colonies who converted to Catholicism but still secretly practiced Judaism, or those Christians who paid taxes to Muslim rulers to be allowed to worship, but subjected to the Holy Inquisition or Sharia laws. "Those who work with their hands r being ruled; those who work with with their heads, rule."

Good, you cleared up the contradiction; however, I don't see the issue here now. Your point originally was that the ROC is just a Tsarist tool for control, while I pointed out that its basic principles (the theology) is preserved by the Body of Christ, which the Tsar can't change, no matter how many heretical patriarchs he tries to install. True Christians won't start a revolution but they also won't abandon the faith and their principles just because the Tsar says so.

-but in comparison with Oriental traditions it's weak, as it's religious philosophy based on the Greek Platonism, while the real world operates well outside of its logical constraints.

Orthodoxy isn't based on Platonism lol...this is just another popular Western smear job. We take from the Greeks what is useful but most of the time when we use the same philosophical terms they actually have a different meaning (e.g. look up the differences for terms like οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, νοῦς etc.)...also, I'd be very interested in exactly what you mean by the real world operating outside of certain logical constraints...might this be the beginning of you admitting that ultimately you reject logic?

what happened to the idea that "God is within us", & "we all have a free will, as God intended"?

Those statements do not contradict what I said; God is not just within us, He is permeating the entire universe with His Energies and, as I've said, we can all freely decide whether to participate in theosis or not...but if we don't then we will have chosen to be slaves to the passions.

wrong again- read the definition of Dogma!

Have you? From your link:
Dogma: 1a : something held as an established opinion
            especially : a definite authoritative tenet (tenet is defined there as "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true")
I said there will be "a common set of rules and standards", which will obviously be based on definitive authoritative principles, beliefs or doctrines generally held to be true. Thus my statement holds.

- I get to decide whether ur actions concerning me r appropriate or not, not u.

Actually you don't and neither do I...not even in this forum and certainly not in the real world. Here it is the mods and the admin that will decide that and in the real world a court; both of those may take your statements as input but ultimately the decision will be based on rules that did not come from you.

- if they were strong, they would worship their own bodies, taking care of their health & well being, instead of just bending together for prayers & doing some charitable work they find helpful to their consciousness.

So I ask you for the, what, the third (?) time: How do you decide whether someone is strong or weak, good or bad? "Muh feelings"? Besides, even in the West you have studies showing that religiosity correlates with health and the Church certainly encourages people to stay healthy but that doesn't mean that you start "worshipping your own body", which would simply be unbridled pride and doomed to fail anyway because your physical body in this world will eventually get sick and die.
Also, for a guy who just a moment ago was telling me about my allegedly poor English comprehension (it is a third language for me but I do think I reached an adequate level), that is some rather poor grammar there and I think you mean "conscience" not "consciousness".

"everything is relative & ever changing" is the universal truth.

I may frame this in a picture

So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal?
Also, as I've pointed out above already, if "everything is ever changing", why doesn't this assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", change?

- u r reminding me of those Muslims who get easily offended by criticism of their religion. It's not my goal to berate any1 here; if my being objective when in presenting arguments is so offencive, that only shows ur own shallowness & mediocrity.

More lies and condescension...how is calling billions of people on the planet "weak-minded" and accusing them of following a "sham", while you can't even present a semblance of coherence in your own world view yourself, being objective? Also, again, if everything is relative, how can you be objective? How do you know, from your world view (which, btw., from mine, is actually "weak-minded" in the sense that it's pretty stupid as I've shown by exposing the massive self-contradictions that lie at its core) that I couldn't have my "own truth" that is correct? And now you're probably going to whine about personal attacks again after calling me shallow and mediocre

-I never claimed that he was a proper representative of Christianity- don't ever put words in my mouth again!

Yes you did: you said that the Taiping rebellion was "Christian influenced", which is not true. What influenced that idiot was some hallucination and a pamphlet given to him by a heretic. This is like if I received a pamphlet about Yoga from some Westerner who doesn't even believe in Hinduism (which Yoga is partially based on) and then, when I kill some people after claiming that I need to do it because some entity told me it will allow the invention of the ultimate Yoga pose, you come along and accuse me of being a Hinduism-influenced terrorist. It's absurd. I might be a terrorist in that scenario, but it wouldn't be Hinduism that influenced me.
Christianity is not promoting genocide and never has and this guy obviously didn't have the first clue about Christianity or he wouldn't have claimed to be Jesus' brother, which is literally impossible theologically.

me "not understanding" ur points is in ur judgement; they r shallow & every easy to understand, as it's ur worldview that is incoherent.

Prove how my world view is incoherent.

-whether he is or not, it's not essential/relevant. In Russia, all high ranking hierarchs even below the Patriarch work with & report to the special services as needed. That's an axiom.

So you can't prove it. And, just for fun: where does that axiom come from? "muh feelings" again?

the Mongols took fragmented post-Kievan Rus the ROC couldn't hold together; Alaska & California possessions with its converts had to be sold before others took it by force. Ukraine,  Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan & the Baltics with large Orthodox populations were lost during the USSR breakup; wars in Georgia & Ukraine couldn't be stopped by the ROC; today's RF areas beyond the Urals is sparsely populated & easy to hold. Not much to boast about!

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between Church and State (no surprise there, this is one of the issues in Western history). Also, I can understand that you're jealous about Russia being the biggest country on the planet, but try to restrain yourself please, mkay.

- Orthodox Christianity was chosen by Count Vladimir because it didn't prohibit drinking of alcohol which was popular even then.

- but it was in place till 1861, much later than in the rest of Europe.

So? It wasn't slavery.

it was, under a different name. Read the Soviet Anthem!

I know the Soviet Anthem...it's not the anthem of the Russian Empire (which was "God save the Tsar!"). Also, the flag, banner etc. were all different...that I even have to debate this is beyond ridiculous.

- by categorically stating that, u confirm in their minds that it's not worthy of converting into. People's nature stays the same- even of those who allegedly killed the self-declared son of God & later repented & now proselytizing faith in him; such people shouldn't be trusted. Their good intentions, if that was ever the case, paved a road to hell for ms of those they converted.

How do you know what's in Chinese people's minds?
I agree that people's nature stays the same although I have a feeling that we mean two very different things here and the rest is just more BS. The Apostles didn't kill Jesus...this is basic knowledge that even most atheists have. And what exactly is "hell" from your view, since you're not a Christian?

-only for the sake of the argument; I'm just beating u with ur own game.

I added a little smiley into the quote so I can uphold the belief for myself that not everything you say is completely ridiculous

What sins does Islam preaches? To the Muslims, Christians r the bigger sinners.

What the Quran and the Hadiths promote violates almost all of the Ten Commandments, for a start.
Also, even their "top scholar/debater" (Dr. Shabir Ally) recently lost overwhelmingly in a debate with an Orthodox Christian (youtube.com/watch?v=UQO8Ul4r3KQ), because they don't have a coherent world view.

- it views itself as the guardian of state unity; once the ideology cracks & yields to religious sects, the whole gov. structure will collapse.

Sure, but gov. collapse will happen anyway; I just hope what comes after is based on the truth.

- not if they transform into nationalistic a la KMT run state. China may later even become a confederation with regional autonomies but 1 capital.

First of all, that may very well be a sort of collapse; there is no guarantee that it will be a smooth transition. And secondly, as long as they keep themselves in a revolutionary state ideology wise they will always be unstable.

- if/when that happens, the Chinese will regain their original faiths 1st before adopting anything else from unpredictable Russia.

Orthodoxy does not just exist in Russia and you can't tell the future even though I'm sure you'd like to.

deep down they have their own theology and metaphysics that is not perennial.- by being flexible & able to change by absorbing what is useful makes it better suited & longer lasting. wrote:I didn't say that I was excusing it, but the Orthodox Church does not wage war...-sure, priests & monks don't, but as it consists of laity who belong to it, it does. The RF military has chaplains, chapels & churches on its bases. 
Whether it's worth it for them or not will be their decision and not for some anti-religious Westerner to decide.- nor it is for some ROC or other Eastern Orthodox missionary.
Besides, if everything is relative, how do you even know what things are worth it for them or not? What universal standard that can be applied both to you and them are you using here, if universal standards can't exist?- relativity & universal standards r not relevant in this context. "Learn truth from facts"; what have worked for Russia may never work for China & vice versa.
Because God says so in the Bible..-it's full of contradictions & was written by different people at different times who had their own different agendas; there has been many different versions of it, each claiming to be correct, as well as sacred books that later got excluded from it. 

That is self-contradicting again: if the basic principle in the world is eternal change then this principle must also eventually change, therefore inducing stability and contradicting itself.- changes come at various rates/cycles.

True Christians won't start a revolution but they also won't abandon the faith and their principles just because the Tsar says so.- & thus subjecting themselves to oppression & suffering. Peter the Great & later Bolsheviks/Communists forced the ROC to submit to their will; while under control, it helped them to rule.

Orthodoxy isn't based on Platonism lol...this is just another popular Western smear job. - the jury is till out on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity#Neo-Platonism_in_Orthodox_theology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282422396_The_Role_of_Plato_and_Aristotle_in_the_Formation_of_Orthodoxy_and_Catholicism/link/57383f2608ae9ace840ccd54/download

..also, I'd be very interested in exactly what you mean by the real world operating outside of certain logical constraints...might this be the beginning of you admitting that ultimately you reject logic?- our logic, valid or faulty, is limited to our knowledge (or lack of it) based on science that discovers new things all the time. For example, it was logical to assume that since heavens r perfect, the Moon's surface must be smooth. After Galileo showed the Pope the Lunar craters & mountains through his telescope, the Pope still refused to admit that it was a wrong assumption. 

..we can all freely decide whether to participate in theosis or not...but if we don't then we will have chosen to be slaves to the passions.- Buddhism & Taoism offer methods of cultivation w/o any help from God to control our passions & emotions.

Have you? From your link:
Dogma: 1a : something held as an established opinion
            especially : a definite authoritative tenet (tenet is defined there as "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true")-
these definitions r more appropriate: 

c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
Actually you don't and neither do I...not even in this forum and certainly not in the real world.- regardless, if I don't answer ur question, u don't get to know what I don't want u to know. 

So I ask you for the, what, the third (?) time: How do you decide whether someone is strong or weak, good or bad? - by comparison: those who r free from an organised religion achieved better results as opposed to those who r not.

even in the West you have studies showing that religiosity correlates with health and the Church certainly encourages people to stay healthy but that doesn't mean that you start "worshipping your own body", which would simply be unbridled pride and doomed to fail anyway because your physical body in this world will eventually get sick and die.- don't tell me those fat ROC priests & monks r healthy. Chinese Buddhist/Taoist priests & monks that r healthy r not fat. The 1st Chan(Zen) Patriarch Da Mo came from India to China & saw the Buddhist monks at the Shaolin monastery very weak from laziness & lack of exercise. He then taught them certain routines & methods to improve health & increase strength. Only then they were able to defend themselves & others, including the Emperor, who later granted them a special status. It became a martial arts university; its warrior & doctor monks were famous all over East Asia. 

I have my own 3 Temples: 2 on both sides of my head & 1 is my entire body. In order to have a healthy mind, 1 must have a healthy body. 

So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal?- why should "universal", as present or occurring everywhere; existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal

 be mutually exclusive with "relative", as  considered in relation to something else; comparative?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/relative

Also, as I've pointed out above already, if "everything is ever changing", why doesn't this assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", change?- already covered above.

..how is calling billions of people on the planet "weak-minded" and accusing them of following a "sham", while you can't even present a semblance of coherence in your own world view yourself, being objective?- even if I lack any coherence, it doesn't make them any less weak, since they need their religion to stay organized & focused, or simply something to believe in. 
Also, again, if everything is relative, how can you be objective? - I may be more objective than others like u, & that is enough in itself.
How do you know, from your worldview (which, btw., from mine, is actually "weak-minded" in the sense that it's pretty stupid as I've shown by exposing the massive self-contradictions that lie at its core) that I couldn't have my "own truth" that is correct? - I don't need to have any particular worldview to form an unbiased/objective opinion on anything; at ur level u may be 100% correct, but at other higher levels u may be only partially correct or 100% incorrect.

Yes you did: you said that the Taiping rebellion was "Christian influenced", which is not true.- he led it after having his "visions" under the influence of what he has read, & it wasn't the Koran or the Old Testament- I don't care what any1 says about it.

Prove how my world view is incoherent.- I hope u'll realize it urself 1 day. A believer doesn't need any proof, nor do I need to waste my time on it.
So you can't prove it. And, just for fun: where does that axiom come from?- secular & clerical rulers shared power over people/subjects since the time immemorial. Some rulers were high priests/living gods & defenders of the faith as well. 
You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between Church and State -Two weeks ago, in a speech of his own at the Kremlin, the Patriarch declared in Putin’s presence  that the Church is now the equal of the state for the first time in Russian history;..
https://johnhelmer.org/patriarch-kirill-loses-his-chair-removed-from-russian-state-line-up-at-the-federal-assembly/

"Equal" means there's no difference in power they posess.

Also, I can understand that you're jealous about Russia being the biggest country on the planet,..- no, I'm glad that it is so; that's makes our world balanced & more interesting.

So? It wasn't slavery.- still pretty close to it. Later, after the rich landowners & kulaks were gone, peasants worked for the state while the ROC couldn't say anything in their defence.

I know the Soviet Anthem...it's not the anthem of the Russian Empire (which was "God save the Tsar!"). -a country with a different name would need a different Anthem & flag. Putin himself said that the Bolsheviks changed the sign & the USSR was still Russia.

How do you know what's in Chinese people's minds?-don't know for sure but after studying their history, medicine & philosophy for many years, it's not hard to extrapolate what their attitude might be. I've also visited there, HK & Taiwan some years ago & met many Chinese elsewhere.  

The Apostles didn't kill Jesus...this is basic knowledge that even most atheists have.- didn't say they did, just people of that area & later Christians in general. 
And what exactly is "hell" from your view, since you're not a Christian?- that was a figurative expression, meaning unfavorable outcome.

What the Quran and the Hadiths promote violates almost all of the Ten Commandments, for a start.- a good example of relativism: what is sinful to some is fine for others & vice versa. Hinduism & Taoism also teach how to use sex for better health & attaining enlightenment.

Sure, but gov. collapse will happen anyway; I just hope what comes after is based on the truth.- whose truth? there'll be many groups claiming to profess it.

First of all, that may very well be a sort of collapse; there is no guarantee that it will be a smooth transition. -indeed, there may be terrible slaughter, as happened many times before in China. At least they can absorb that a lot better than Russia, despite not having fat Eastern Orthodox priests to guide them.
And secondly, as long as they keep themselves in a revolutionary state ideology wise they will always be unstable.- it's outdated;  now it's "socialism with Chinese characteristics", i.e. state capitalism with central planning, gov. controls, & social programs.

Orthodoxy does not just exist in Russia..- true, but she is the only predominantly Orthodox country bordering on it.

I'm not willing to discuss anything related to religion with u, sorry. I realized that unfortunately it's not worth my time & there's no benefit for me in it.

Okay since I'm not willing to waste more time on this discussion and it's only marginally related to the topic here, I'll pick out some quotes to debunk further, popular criticisms of Christianity for the benefit of those interested and then show how arguing with people like you is pointless:

-[The Bible is] full of contradictions & was written by different people at different times who had their own different agendas; there has been many different versions of it, each claiming to be correct, as well as sacred books that later got excluded from it.

The Bible is just a reference to the canon of Holy Scripture; it includes books written by different authors in different time periods and in different languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek), whose exact compilation was determined in different ways at different times. For the apostles the Bible was essentially the Septuagint, which is an ancient Greek translation of what is today considered the Old Testament; after witnessing Jesus Christ's teachings and acts as well as His death and resurrection (especially the latter) the apostles started spreading His teachings further, despite the state starting to persecute them for it (all the apostles were eventually tortured and killed by the state at different times). This is because they could not discard what they had witnessed and were thus compelled to believe and filled by the Holy Spirit to carry out this work despite the extreme hardships it brought to them (many of them were actually wealthy and had a comfortable life before).
The Church was already being formed before this happened, with even Bishops being already present in these very early days (e.g. Acts 1:20) and Ecumenical Councils, as tools to resolve disputes over theology and doctrine, being reported on in the Bible itself as well (Acts 15:6-29); this is why the Church has proceeded to use this ecclesiastic structure and Ecumenical Councils to make decisions in the most important matters of the Faith. After the Apostles died, people were worried that their oral teachings might become corrupted over time, so they proceeded to write them down in what is today known as the Gospels and, together with some other writings of the apostles and other authors, became the New Testament.
Since there were people who were trying, for various reasons, to influence the developing Church by publishing their own "gospels" and other writings they claimed to be Holy, the Church engaged in lots of debates and discussions and came together in Ecumenical Councils to determine which works were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus should be part of the canon of Scripture; they did this by looking at the teachings of the apostles and the Septuagint to see what kind of world view was being presented there. By formalizing and systematizing the teachings, the theology was born out (concretized), which allowed a clear derivation of the Christian metaphysics and thus allowed to more easily see which writings deviated from it and were thus false; the last book of what we today know as the Bible was written in the late first century; it is in the 4th century that the Orthodox Christian canon was proposed for the first time and it was formalized in the 6th century. This shows why Protestantism is false: it is the tradition of the Church, that determined the canon of Scripture, so you can't discard the tradition of the Church, which gave you the Bible, based on the Bible (the Protestant "sola scriptura" doctrine)...people didn't walk around with what we today know as Bibles in the first half of the first millennium because that collection wasn't even compiled yet.
So, this should also make it obvious why any talk of "contradictions" is useless...the Church spent a great deal of time (half a millennium) carefully compiling the Bible and made sure that there are no real contradictions in it; I spent a lot of time looking at supposed contradictions, but they all disappear once you read some actually competent commentary, based on the Church Father's teachings, on it and understand the proper interpretation (plus, a lot of it simply comes from the fact that some people think the Bible was written in English, when in fact the languages used are much older and more limited, making a proper interpretation often not trivial).
In order to spread and preserve the teachings, the Bible was, of course, copied many times; since people back then didn't have computers with error-correcting hard-drives and printers that print the same file in exactly the same way every time, variations started appearing due to mistakes made by the scribes who were hired to copy texts (which was pretty expensive back then). Today we know of around 6000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament alone, with millions of pages in total and around 200,000 variations between them. This amounts to, on average, one scribal error every ~10 pages (in the vast majority of cases a spelling error), which is probably far better than your average high school senior today could manage (if they even know how to write by hand anymore). However, the Church was aware of this and obviously discarded the lowest-quality manuscripts. As for the question of how much the variations impact doctrinal elements of Scripture, even liberal, anti-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrmann admit that they don't.

Regarding Orthodoxy and the alleged Platonic influence: I already pointed out to you that many Greek philosophical terms which are used by the Church Fathers to derive the Christian theology and metaphysics from the Gospels and Septuagint have a different meaning than in Platonic or even Aristotelian writings; assuming that a word must always have the exact same meaning in every context in called the word-concept fallacy. The Church Fathers have defined all the relevant terms (see, e.g. St. John of Damascus' "An exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith") and this alone debunks such smears. If anything, it is Roman Catholicism that is Platonic as most of them worship the "absolutely simple divine essence", which is a far more impersonal, Platonic understanding of God than we have: for us God is personal. The One True God is The Father and He, being nominally God, rules together eternally with His Only Begotten Son (His Word / Logos) and His Spirit, who share equally in His Essence and His Actions in the universe and are thus also divine (God in the qualitative sense). That is nothing like Platonism. The Church Fathers even talk about this: read St. Basil's "Adress to young men on the right use of Greek literature" (tertullian.org/fathers/basil_litterature01.htm).

Some of the rest I've tried to put in a more useful order...these are just some more debunkings and examples of fallacies on your part:
First, to answer your objection about my showing the contradiction of relativism:

   - why should "universal", as present or occurring everywhere; existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions be mutually exclusive with "relative", as  considered in relation to something else; comparative?

Because "being in relation to something else" means it is dependant on that other thing and therefore subject to change if the other thing changes, which means it cannot be "operative under all conditions". Thus, "universal" is mutually exclusive with "relative" and my statements hold. Just for reference for others I'll repost them, since this is the core of the issue:
You said:

"everything is relative & ever changing" is the universal truth.

So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal?
Also, as I've pointed out above already, if "everything is ever changing", why doesn't this assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", change?

- our logic, valid or faulty, is limited to our knowledge (or lack of it) based on science that discovers new things all the time.

False. Your attempt at applying logic may be faulty or valid, but logic itself is merely a set of axioms, based on which we can reason within the world. It can be condensed down to the three laws of thought:

1) The Law of Identity - Whatever is, is. (also known as "A thing is always itself")
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - Nothing can both be and not be. (also known as "contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense")
3) The Law of Excluded Middle - Everything must either be or not be. (also known as "Every judgement is either true or false")

Without these three laws you cannot even reason at all. Even a simple rejection of them (e.g. "I reject the laws of logic") is rendered completely meaningless, because without other people assuming that you assert the laws of logic the statement can mean anything at all, including it's inverse (i.e. that you don't actually reject the laws of logic), because only by taking the Law of Identity as axiomatic will the words be attached to the meaning assigned to them in the current cultural and linguistic context, only by taking the Law of Non-Contradiction as axiomatic can this statement not mean its inverse (acceptance of the laws of logic) and only by taking the Law of Excluded Middle as axiomatic can there not be some arbitrary "middle ground" interpretation, leaving everyone to wonder which "mode of truth" you are actually implying.

As for tying logic to science: that is a fallacy (petitio principii, AKA begging the question), because science itself depends on logic. Without logic you obviously can't do science, and there are a lot more presuppositions that science requires, such as assumptions of regularity in the world, assumptions that the outer world you observe actually correlates with your perceptions of it and many more. This is why science cannot be used to derive logic or epistemic sources; you need an already-in-place world view within which you can then do science.
Furthermore, science is limited to the natural, the physical...matter and energy. It cannot investigate the metaphysical, because the metaphysical cannot be perceived by our natural senses. Think about numbers, for example: the number "7" can be displayed on a screen or written on a piece of paper; but is that really the number "7" itself? Of course not! If it was then I could forever destroy that number by burning the piece of paper and no one could use it in maths anymore. That's obviously not the case. The number is also not in our brains, since our brains differ from one another and are made up of different atoms and yet the number 7 remains exactly the same, no matter which human makes use of it and many humans who have done maths have died and their brains rotted and yet the number is still here (and would be, even if all humans died tomorrow). That's because things like numbers and logic (and also God) are metaphysical, not physical and thus cannot be investigated through science. They are a fundamental, universal part of the world we live in; they are "universals".

- relativity & universal standards r not relevant in this context. "Learn truth from facts"; what have worked for Russia may never work for China & vice versa.

Of course they are relevant...in order to compare across categories, in this case your value system and theirs, you need to have a universal standard by which to evaluate both. If you were consistent in your relativism you wouldn't judge me or the Chinese at all because you would have no idea what would be good or bad for them or me, because our "truths" would be entirely independent from yours. As to "learn truth from facts": that is extremely limited as I've already laid out above after my explanation of what logic is. In Empiricism you hit a well known problem, that Empiricists still haven't been able to solve (and never will): the Problem of Induction:
Imagine a turkey is kept by a farmer and is able to reason and experience as we do. The turkey lives for years under the farmer's care and observes being fed and protected from predators every single day of his life, without fail. If the turkey were now to scientifically speculate on the course of the rest of his life, he would rationally and logically be able to reach the conclusion that this almost paradisical state of affairs will continue for the rest of his life until he dies a natural death. There is no reason why he should think otherwise, because this is all he has observed so far. Of course we, knowing a greater context, would have reason to be sceptical of that conclusion since we know that farmers like to keep turkeys until they get fat and then kill them to sell just before Thanks-Giving, for example. But the turkey doesn't know that.
This is just an easy way to demonstrate the limitations of science...not only is science limited to the physical but there is no way that you will ever know whether your current theory will be falsified with new data tomorrow or next year or in 100 years, because you can't ever be certain that you now know the full context. Even modern theories, like General Relativity (which, btw. falsified Newton's Laws in the sense that it updated them, even though for hundreds of years people thought those laws were solid) or the Standard Cosmological Model aren't safe...the latter is recently coming under fire due to a series of experiments using different methodology that are discordant with it and the former is not fully compatible with Quantum Physics. Even without these examples, however, in a hypothetical world where all scientific theories are compatible and no evidence has been found to falsify any of them they could still all be false without the people "believing in them" knowing it. And "believing in science" or scientific theories is rather unscientific to begin with...yet many "objective, science-oriented" atheists do just that.

- by being flexible & able to change by absorbing what is useful makes it better suited & longer lasting

By definition something that is ever-changing cannot be "long lasting"...this should be obvious.

- changes come at various rates/cycles.

That doesn't matter; even at a very low rate of change, if the basic principle is that everything changes, the basic principle must also change eventually, which is self-contradicting and thus shows that "eternal change" cannot be the basic principle.

- by comparison: those who r free from an organised religion achieved better results as opposed to those who r not.

You have a completely arbitrary moral system based on a completely self-contradicting world view, which means you have no valid basis to call something better than something else (especially since, in order to do that, you would need a universal standard of comparison, which you reject as a relativist). Also, as always, instead of showing actual proof, even of the scientific kind, you just arbitrarily claim it since you seem to think that everyone else just needs to take your incoherent drivel as axiomatic. Meanwhile, it is well established (e.g. see here mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62799-7/pdf) that religion has a positive impact on health (in that article, which is a review of many studies and meta-analyses, they even recommend clinicians to rely on "chaplains" to address patients' spiritual needs).

- I don't need to have any particular worldview to form an unbiased/objective opinion on anything

Yes you do. Your world view is your epistemic source (your "interpretative framework", if you like), without which you can't have any knowledge. Your world view (some variation of relativism) is completely incoherent, which is why your argumentation is completely incoherent; you literally think, as you've even explicitly demonstrated multiple times, that you can just make up axioms arbitrarily without needing to justify them and then you expect everyone else to go along with it.

- I may be more objective than others like u, & that is enough in itself.

That's nice, dear. Another one of your "axioms", I take it.  

- he led it after having his "visions" under the influence of what he has read, & it wasn't the Koran or the Old Testament- I don't care what any1 says about it.

Correct; he read a heretic's pamphlet. Had he actually read the Old and New Testament and understood them he wouldn't have committed genocide. This is why it was false to claim Christianity was responsible. And I suppose that your "I don't care what any1 says about it" means that we're dealing with yet another one of your axioms here, right?

- I hope u'll realize it urself 1 day. A believer doesn't need any proof, nor do I need to waste my time on it.

So you can't prove how my world view is incoherent. No surprise there.

- secular & clerical rulers shared power over people/subjects since the time immemorial. Some rulers were high priests/living gods & defenders of the faith as well.

This is, at best, the fallacy of division. Even if I were to grant your generalized statement it still doesn't make your assertion true with respect to the specific case.

Two weeks ago, in a speech of his own at the Kremlin, the Patriarch declared in Putin’s presence  that the Church is now the equal of the state for the first time in Russian history;.."Equal" means there's no difference in power they posess.

First of all, this was last year, not two weeks ago. Second, if you check what Patriarch Kirill actually said, it's "We are offered the opportunity to discuss various issues that concern our people, our society, and, of course, our Church," (talking about the Church interacting with the state) and "And I would even dare say that for the first time in Russia's history, such a relationship has established itself between the Church and the state."...so this has nothing to do with sharing any power or having the same power in some other way, but merely that the state is listening to their opinions more.

- a good example of relativism: what is sinful to some is fine for others & vice versa.

And yet you judge me and billions of other people by calling us "weak-minded"...if you actually were consistent (as consistent as one can be in your world view, at least, since you'll never have a stable epistemic basis) then you wouldn't do that.

In conclusion: Not only have you shown yourself to be a relativist, which I demonstrated to be a deeply self-contradicting world view, but you don't even understand what logic is and think that you can get all your answers from science (that is, when you're not just making them up as "axioms"). As a result it is not surprising that you're making little sense in your argumentation and commit one fallacy after the next. Your overall argumentation is basically Sophistry and serves only to manipulate those who encounter it, not to arrive at the truth. This is actually what e.g. Germanic pagans used to practise intentionally because they thought it was part of what they considered to be "magic"...manipulating the world and especially the minds around oneself for ones own advantage (which is, btw., also the Darwinian view of rhetoric and conversation...that's not a coincidence). It is evident that you are unwilling to reconsider your position and you have in multiple cases made the exact same point again, even though I had refuted you with proof before. This, as well as the generally low quality answers you give, can be considered as part of a Gish Gallop tactic designed to waste my time.
Your actions here, therefore, whether this is how you view it or not, can be considered a kind of pagan ritual, which I'm frankly not willing to be part of any longer. Ironically it is precisely Western atheists, who often claim to be rational, objective, science-based and utterly non-religious, who tend to behave this way. This is also the root of most of the issues in the West today; why do you think the media just keeps lying so openly and intentionally? Why do Western academics claim that there are no biological differences between men and women? Why are your politicians, especially, driven entirely by greed and drenched in sin? Because they all reject the very concept of Truth, which is Jesus Christ; because they even hate Truth, Beauty and the Good. It is the same sickness afflicting you that is rotting in the West. In the end you are simply rejecting God and returning to your pagan roots. For anyone interested in a much more elaborate analysis of the West's development and decline from an Orthodox perspective in English, you can find and read (or listen to on youtube to) Father Seraphim Rose's "Orthodox Survival Guide".

And now for the bit that ties it into this thread's actual topic:

- whose truth? there'll be many groups claiming to profess it.

The Truth. There is only one...this is the whole point. Without acceptance of a universal truth there will always be revolution.

socialism with Chinese characteristics

Socialism of whatever kind is still a revolutionary ideology and always will be, because it's completely arbitrary and ultimately based on a similar kind of relativistic world view you are promoting; that's why it only holds on to power through fear and oppression. People seek meaning and purpose in life and the atheistic, socialistic elites in China can't give them any; that's why the people are turning to religions or practices like Falun Gong despite being persecuted for it.
True stability only comes with an acceptance of the truth. That's why the (Orthodox) Byzantine Empire was the longest lasting empire on the planet to date, despite having been riddled occasionally with heretics and back-stabbed by the West (Fourth Crusade) as well as bearing the brunt of the Muslim horde's assaults. Its downfall was multifactorial and had to do, among many other issues, but not least, with a growing faithlessness and ethnic pride, particularly among Greeks. The downfall of the current Chinese regime will have a much simpler explanation.

The Bible is just a reference to the canon of Holy Scripture; it includes books written by different authors in different time periods and in different languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek),..

The Hebrew Bible is is based on more ancient Babylonian & Sumerian texts. According to most interpretations regarding Biblical chronology, the Earth is only ~6K years old, which isn't true, as proven by geologists & paleontologists, not to mention anthropologists, as hominids & humans been around for much longer.

..after witnessing Jesus Christ's teachings and acts as well as His death and resurrection (especially the latter) the apostles started spreading His teachings further, ..This is because they could not discard what they had witnessed..

there's no independent record of what they witnessed; they started a new religion & were persecuted, but that isn't in itself a proof that what they were telling is the truth, the whole truth, beyond any reasonable doubt.

the Church engaged in lots of debates and discussions and came together in Ecumenical Councils to determine which works were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus should be part of the canon of Scripture;..  By formalizing and systematizing the teachings, the theology was born out (concretized),.. 

all these later interpretations/rulings, while still subjective, don't validate the veracity of the original reason for the new religious movement/cult.

So, this should also make it obvious why any talk of "contradictions" is useless...

I should have also used the word "inconsistencies" & lies:

The_Age_of_Reason  FREE DOWNLOAD

https://librebook.me/zabavnaia_bibliia

Notes on  The Problem of Evil

[url=http://pitt.edu/~jdg83/teaching/pdfs/15 Mackie Lewis - Problem of Evil.pdf]Mackie and Lewis — The Problem of Evil[/url]

Pseudo-science, the Bible and human freedom

https://ascienceenthusiast.com/10-crazy-bible-stories-that-christians-conveniently-ignore/

So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal? ..even at a very low rate of change, if the basic principle is that everything changes, the basic principle must also change eventually, which is self-contradicting and thus shows that "eternal change" cannot be the basic principle.

Everywhere, things r relative to each other; FYI, the Taoist principle of Yin & Yang & changes it describes/postulates that governs them is universal, i.e. aplicable to all phenomena. 

By definition something that is ever-changing cannot be "long lasting"...this should be obvious.

A tradition/religion that adopts with necessary changes is still the same 1 with new elements. The evolve & therefore endure, while those which don't completely cease to exist.

You have a completely arbitrary moral system.. 

no, I don't: When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos. --- Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, #38)
Ethics & Morality In Taoist Practice

Also, as always, instead of showing actual proof, even of the scientific kind, you just arbitrarily claim it since you seem to think that everyone else just needs to take your incoherent drivel as axiomatic.

even if I had presented a proof, u would get around it as all believers do who don't accept anything that is against their worldview as proof; as stated before, I don't care what any1 think. 

Correct; he read a heretic's pamphlet. Had he actually read the Old and New Testament and understood them he wouldn't have committed genocide. 

he used it to rally rebels to his cause, just like many others before him who claimed that gods or god told them to rise up & make war. That's why Chinese rulers were & r always weary of religious sects that may become a rebel warring clan/faction set to seize power. Any religion is a convenient tool that can be used to justify both destruction of the old & creation of something new in its place. Christianity in all its forms is no exception.

So you can't prove how my world view is incoherent. No surprise there.

U'll give me that proof if u continue to reject the arguments in the links above & below.

This is, at best, the fallacy of division. Even if I were to grant your generalized statement it still doesn't make your assertion true with respect to the specific case.

no, it's called "the preponderance of evidence'. 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/feb/12/1

http://www.celticorthodoxchurch.com/kirill_KGB.html

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2012/07/31/patriarch-plants-church-near-fsb-school-a16678


https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/F_009_Kyrill_2.html

https://risu.ua/en/kgb-christians-putin-stalin-and-the-kgb-s-history-of-manipulating-the-orthodox-church_n77727


https://twitter.com/ryskeldisatke/status/1127080311165263872

And yet you judge me and billions of other people by calling us "weak-minded"...

even these cats r stronger minded, since they have no need tonor  pray at any church: 
https://www.rt.com/news/436521-cats-sermon-church-stray-animals/

in fact, their ancestors/relatives were worshipped In Egypt.

People seek meaning and purpose in life and the atheistic, socialistic elites in China can't give them any; that's why the people are turning to religions or practices like Falun Gong despite being persecuted for it.

that movement has a lot more chances for growth than yet another imported branch of Christianity, since it's based on Buddhism & Taoism. Marxist theory & Judeo-Christian system of principles & values r not compatible with E. Asians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42V8BGBvTk

[url=http://pitt.edu/~jdg83/teaching/pdfs/15 Mackie Lewis - Problem of Evil.pdf][/url]

..Laotzu spurned both religious and civil ceremony as misleading and harmful spectacle, his faith and conduct depending upon no outward prop but upon inner accord with the conscience of the universe. Tao Te Ching by Witter Bynner

“Silence is a source of Great Strength.” “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” “Because one believes in oneself, one doesn't try to convince others. Because one is content with oneself, one doesn't need others' approval." - Lao Tzu 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s90S3v5Vjs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWnHxbt0Qw 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtcgJ1yZkIc   

Israelites Came to Ancient Japan Did the Lost Tribes of Israel Come To Ancient Japan?

• Various Other Similarities Between Ancient Israel and Ancient Japan
  
  
• Tomb of Jesus in Shingō
  

If the Ancient Japanese could incorporate rituals & other elements of Judaism into Shintoism, it's a safe bet the Chinese would do the same with E. Orthodoxy, borrowing elements of it into their belief systems, if it ever wins many adherents. They've done before when some Sumerians reached China ~4K years ago & later Buddhism & Islam made their way there.

Alright, since I have some time right now, I'll try and clear another round of BS so that others may profit and not fall for these silly smears of Christianity...

First, to continue the core part of the argument - your relativism and its incoherence:

Everywhere, things r relative to each other; FYI, the Taoist principle of Yin & Yang & changes it describes/postulates that governs them is universal, i.e. aplicable to all phenomena.

If the "Taoist principle" is universal then it can't be relative (as I've even explicitly demonstrated in my previous post from your definitions); therefore, not everything is relative. This means "everything is relative and ever-changing" cannot be the basic principle. If you want to claim that "everything except the Taoist principle is relative and ever-changing" then a) you're not a relativist anymore, because universals can clearly exist in your world view and b) you need to properly justify why the Taoist principle is the only possible universal and c) properly justify how other things that seem to be universal, like logic and morality and many more are valid without being universal (e.g. why should anyone follow the Taoist principle? There is clearly logic as well as a moral claim involved here that won't make sense unless they, also, are universal).

A tradition/religion that adopts with necessary changes is still the same 1 with new elements. The evolve & therefore endure, while those which don't completely cease to exist.

Nope. If something changes so entirely that it's very core is changed then it seizes to exist and is replaced by something else. If a certain "core" remains, then that core obviously didn't change. This is just a further version of the issue above...as you have shown multiple times, you want to claim that "everything is relative" while arbitrarily deciding that certain things are "axioms" (and thus universal) without giving proper justification for them; we're just supposed to let you decide that for us, which is reminiscent of the behavior of little children.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos. --- Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, #38)

This is ridiculous. So obviously, even though "everything is relative", "the Tao", "goodness", "morality" and "ritual" are universals according to that statement. Furthermore, why should anyone follow this chain, especially once morality "is lost"? To assert so is a moral claim! How can there be moral claims when "morality is lost"?

And it seems we've just discovered another one of your moral principles:

even these cats r stronger minded, since they have no need tonor  pray at any church:
https://www.rt.com/news/436521-cats-sermon-church-stray-animals/

in fact, their ancestors/relatives were worshipped In Egypt.

So basically "might makes right", which further confirms my theory that you're just a pagan LARPer.
Also, unsurprisingly, this second moral principle of yours completely contradicts your first (Golden Rule - do onto others what you'd like them to do onto you).
If I was really hungry and it's the Apocalypse so there's nothing to eat but I find a stray cat (or even another human) then while according to the Golden Rule I shouldn't eat them, I practically can as long as I am stronger and according to "might makes right" that's totally fine and I should do it. This is the kind of BS that roams around in atheists' and pagans' minds...my theory on why you hold these positions, from a psychological perspective, is that on the one hand you want to feel justified to do anything you like to others as long as you practically can (like steal candy from a baby - might makes right), while at the same time telling yourself that you're really just a "good guy" who abides by the Golden Rule....until he doesn't.
This is exactly why people have been, for Aeons, looking for a consistent world view, that does away with BS like that and provides proper justification for universal truths, including moral truths. They found it in Christ and His Church but you Western pagans don't want to hear it, because then you can't do "whatever I want, maaaan" anymore and not feel guilty and know that you are judged. This is why socialism is so friendly with Islam and many other religions except Christianity...because they're all completely incoherent and thus easily allow justification for things like "killing the rich" or putting whoever you don't like into the Gulag etc...how can you even complain about e.g. liberals, when you are just as arbitrary and incoherent as they are?
Here is an illustration of your moral position (just exchange Odin with Tao or whatever   ):


And what will likely again be part of your reply?

I don't care what any1 think.

Some other relevant bits:

“Silence is a source of Great Strength.” “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” “Because one believes in oneself, one doesn't try to convince others. Because one is content with oneself, one doesn't need others' approval."- Lao Tzu

Oh man...Since he is communicating this (he's "speaking") it would follow that he "doesn't know" then...also why, if his goal were actually not to convince others, is he telling others his beliefs? Finally, since you keep replying to my posts, you obviously are trying to either convince me or other potential readers of your position. Which is, again, a total contradiction if you actually believe what this Lao Tzu guy preaches (though to be fair, you're only following in his foot steps, since he is also totally contradicting himself)  

Okay now for some Christian apologetics:

The Hebrew Bible is is based on more ancient Babylonian & Sumerian texts

No, it isn't...just because something has similarity to something else (is correlated) does not mean that there is a causal link (correlation != causation)...anyone who knows basic scientific principles knows this, btw.
The fact that there are similarities just further confirms our view that there is only one truth and one correct historical narrative that simply exists in corrupted forms in some other sources.

According to most interpretations regarding Biblical chronology, the Earth is only ~6K years old, which isn't true, as proven by geologists & paleontologists, not to mention anthropologists, as hominids & humans been around for much longer.

First of all, even the Young Earth Creationists are constantly bickering among themselves how old the Earth is supposed to be, which is due to the fact that the Bible doesn't state the age of the Earth anywhere...the genealogies cannot be interpreted to be without implicit gaps for various reasons which would be clear to you, had you ever actually read the Bible.
Second, alone the fact that the "י֥וֹם" (yo-wm) in the original text (Ancient Hebrew original of Genesis 1) is not consistently translated as day in other parts of the Bible (e.g. it's used to signify large periods of time of arbitrary length) should give you a clue that "yo-wm" doesn't necessarily have to be understood as a 24 hour day and thus you can't know how old the Earth is. The same goes for the Hebrew words for "morning" and "evening", which can also mean "beginning" and "end"...this is because Ancient Hebrew is a very limited language that only has around 7000 words, so most words have many different meanings. And even if you were to insist on a 24-h interpretation, there are ways to make that work...read e.g. comments by physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, who points out that time, as viewed in the context of the theory of Relativity, changes with respect to the rate at which it passes; since space and time are linked, a stretching of space also means a stretching of time. If the Standard Cosmological model is correct then the universe expanded rapidly and is still expanding, so space stretched a lot and so did time. If one were to view the passage of time at a reference point in space-time 1 sec after the Big Bang (from that reference frame), then the time that passed from "then" to "now" would be exactly 6 times 24 hours (the 6 "days" of creation)...other views, like the coherentist view, are presented e.g. here. I'm not endorsing any of those views since ultimately they are simply to satisfy a scientistic obsession created by the High Priests of the secular post-modern world; the official position of the Orthodox Church is that we don't know if creation can be modelled correctly using science (since it obviously involves the super-natural, which is inaccessible to science) and thus all such theories, including the Young Earth Creationist view, are, at best, "theologumina" (theological opinions) and will never be dogma.

there's no independent record of what they witnessed; they started a new religion & were persecuted, but that isn't in itself a proof that what they were telling is the truth, the whole truth, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Of course there are independent records...here is just one of many write-ups about this.
I'll tell you another great proof if you read this chapter of the Bible and tell me who it is about (a very well known historical person).
As to The Truth: I've already talked about this in my previous post...the theology and metaphysics are derived from Scripture. The way that we know they are true is that they make sense and give a coherent, logical explanation for the world in all important aspects (epistemology, morality, metaphysics).

all these later interpretations/rulings, while still subjective, don't validate the veracity of the original reason for the new religious movement/cult.

The historical evidence does; see above. But also note that even liberal scholars admit that a) Jesus Christ was a real historical person, b) that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and c) that his grave was found empty after three days...the only disagreement is around why his grave was empty (they usually claim his followers robbed it without presenting evidence for that). Why would the apostles and his other followers, many of whom were wealthy and had a comfortable life, give all that up and accept being persecuted and tortured by the state (and eventually killed), with that activity flaring up after Jesus' death, if they didn't see him resurrect? It's completely implausible that they would do that unless they witnessed this and many other miracles.

The other anti-Christian links just contain incoherent or even unrelated drivel / content and since one of them doesn't even work (no permission to view document) I take it that you probably found them while typing "why Christianity bad" into Google without actually clicking on and reading any of this yourself.
If you want to make an actual argument, make it.

As to our beloved "KGB Patriach"   :
The fact that you post smears from the likes of "Guardian" or "The Moscow Times" shows that you're not far from typical Western liberals even if you claim you are.
Your "celtic orthodox" link is even more hilarious: this is apparently a group that derives its apostolicity from some Eastern Catholic Ukrainian "bishop" and they seem to like worshipping Fulton Sheen  
So they're obviously not Orthodox, probably some SSPX or SV RCs or even some weird RC-larping Protestant group and they derive their "legitimacy" from some Ukrainian heretic, which makes it quite unsurprising that they want to smear Patriarch Kyrill...there's nothing of substance anywhere to be found...it's all made-up BS and conjecture by anti-Orthodox people and russophobes; note also how that guy in the interview on twitter doesn't actually affirm the statements of the tweet itself and further presents no proof for his assertions...according to him Russia today is ruled by 1) "the KGB" 2) "the ROC" and 3) "Russian business"...ridiculous. This also shows, again, that you're simply using Gish Gallop tactics by flinging dung like a monkey to waste my time since you obviously don't examine the links you post yourself.

And finally, returning to the more-strictly-on-topic portion:

he used it to rally rebels to his cause, just like many others before him who claimed that gods or god told them to rise up & make war. That's why Chinese rulers were & r always weary of religious sects that may become a rebel warring clan/faction set to seize power. Any religion is a convenient tool that can be used to justify both destruction of the old & creation of something new in its place. Christianity in all its forms is no exception.

Completely irrelevant, as I've said about 3 or 4 times now...I'm not here to defend all religions, only the Truth, which this guy had no clue about.

If the Ancient Japanese could incorporate rituals & other elements of Judaism into Shintoism, it's a safe bet the Chinese would do the same with E. Orthodoxy, borrowing elements of it into their belief systems, if it ever wins many adherents. They've done before when some Sumerians reached China ~4K years ago & later Buddhism & Islam made their way there.

You can't just mix and match religions together however you like...the new religion you would create that way will be self-contradicting! Which, for you, is just more of the same since that also applies to your world view.  
Mixing and matching religions is what spoiled Western brats do to fill the hole of faithlessness and purposelessness is their lives, while not really committing to anything, including the religions they pretend to profess.

that movement has a lot more chances for growth than yet another imported branch of Christianity, since it's based on Buddhism & Taoism. Marxist theory & Judeo-Christian system of principles & values r not compatible with E. Asians.

So here you are again arbitrarily deciding that something that is "based on Buddhism & Taoism" is simply better...that alone has multiple levels of idiocy in it: 1) Buddhism and Taoism aren't the same thing, so something can't be coherently based on both 2) there are many different forms of Buddhism and probably also Taoism (e.g. with Buddhism alone there are very different interpretations that contradict one another, like Chen Buddhism and Zen Buddhism) and 3) you have to actually show with a valid, coherent argument, why it is better...there is no reason why anyone should following along with your arbitrary "axioms" that you constantly keep making up.
As for the latter part of the quote: I ask you again, for the second time: how do you know what is good or bad for Asians?
This smells to me like the typical Western supremacist idea of "knowing what's best for everyone" and then forcing that on everyone else. You need to actually demonstrate that this view or that view is best, as I have done with mine, while disassembling yours. The people of China or wherever can then decide for themselves if they want to follow the Truth or not, but even if they don't, that doesn't falsify the Truth.

If the "Taoist principle" is universal then it can't be relative (as I've even explicitly demonstrated in my previous post from your definitions); therefore, not everything is relative.

Being relative within itself & how others r relating to it, either accepting or rejecting it, also make it universal. 
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things. 

[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/tao.shtml#:~:text=The Tao that can be,the mother of all things.]Religions - Taoism: What is the Tao? - BBC[/url]

So obviously, even though "everything is relative", "the Tao", "goodness", "morality" and "ritual" are universals according to that statement.

everything under the Tao is not universal; those concepts/things r parts of the Tao just like any other phenomena.

Furthermore, why should anyone follow this chain, especially once morality "is lost"? To assert so is a moral claim! How can there be moral claims when "morality is lost"?

No, t's not a moral claim, but observation: when people loose their morality, after losing/not knowing The Way (Tao) before that, they rely on ritual to help them. Since different peoples use different rituals/teachings, conflicts within &/ between them arise. 

So basically "might makes right", which further confirms my theory that you're just a pagan LARPer.

right or wrong isn't relevant here- as nature is indifferent, the stronger & the open minded r the 1s better equipped to survive. 

They found it in Christ and His Church but you Western pagans ..

FYI, I'm of the Jewish, Italian & Slavic descent, grew up & educated in E. Europe as well as USA,, & been exposed to the ROC rituals. They no longer impress me.

Since he is communicating this (he's "speaking") it would follow that he "doesn't know" then...also why, if his goal were actually not to convince others, is he telling others his beliefs? Finally, since you keep replying to my posts, you obviously are trying to either convince me or other potential readers of your position. 

hair splitting & nitpicking again! Lao Tzu (whom Confucius called a Dragon) was asked to write his philosophy by a border guard before allowing him to cross to the West. I'm not like u, telling others what they should or should not believe in; I post my replies as a mental exercise- take it or leave it.  

The fact that there are similarities just further confirms our view that there is only one truth and one correct historical narrative that simply exists in corrupted forms in some other sources.

Some1 said: "when gossips grow old, they become myths". The Christian accepted sources came after more ancient sources, so they would produce more corrupt/incorrect info.

Familiar Mysteries: The Truth in Myth

..the genealogies cannot be interpreted to be without implicit gaps for various reasons which would be clear to you, had you ever actually read the Bible.

if there r gaps, then the Bible (which I did read) isn't a complete record & therefore can't be claimed as a reliable source. Bible scholars' & clerics' calculations which many accepted as correct & true were proven wrong, just like the dogmas that the Earth is the center of perfect Heaven & there's only 1 Sun- Galileo Galilei (whom the RCC rehabilitated only a few decades ago) & J. Bruno (who was burned at the stake) showed otherwise & thus undermined the RCC power. 
Regardless of the Book of Genesis various interpretations at any given time, the Christians used them to their advantage to push their agendas & beliefs on others. 

Of course there are independent records...here is just one of many write-ups about this.

all of them r written long after the alleged christ resurrection, & many refer to each other or other non-contemporary sources.

The way that we know they are true is that they make sense and give a coherent, logical explanation for the world in all important aspects (epistemology, morality, metaphysics).

As stated before, since that particular logic & morality didn't succeed in making Russia the greatest place on Earth since the year of 988AD, I rest my case.

The other anti-Christian links just contain incoherent or even unrelated drivel / content and since one of them doesn't even work (no permission to view document) I take it that you probably found them while typing "why Christianity bad" into Google without actually clicking on and reading any of this yourself.

I've read all of them- u need to have an account to open that article. 

If you want to make an actual argument, make it.

my arguments r their arguments- if they don't impress u, I could care less since it's not my problem.

As to our beloved "KGB Patriarch"   :
The fact that you post smears from the likes of "Guardian" or "The Moscow Times" shows that you're not far from typical Western liberals even if you claim you are.

their affiliation/leaning r not relevant- if the info. is correct, ur biased attitude  will prevent u from accepting it no matter what, since u r blinded by faith.

I'm not here to defend all religions, only the Truth, ..

by all means, but don't try to shove ur version of it down any 1's throat. The ROC conversions of natives in Siberia, the Far East, California & Alaska helped the Russian Empire to control them, just like Catholic missionaries helped the Spanish, Portuguese & French Empires to colonize & subjugate Ms in Asia, Africa & the Americas. The Chinese know it & remember how they lost lands & lives to the Christian Cossacks.

You can't just mix and match religions together however you like...the new religion you would create that way will be self-contradicting!

Christianity is the product of such mixing:
Even before the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE, when Nestorianism was deemed heretical, Christians in Asia and Asia Minor drew religious inspiration from the other faiths that surrounded them. For example, early Christian ascetics were influenced by the self-denying practices of Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist mystics; some spent many years in seclusion. One such Christian mystic, St. Simeon Stylites, spent 37 years living by himself atop a pillar in Syria. There were major Nestorian centers from Jerusalem to Beijing and Xi'an, and bishoprics (areas controlled by bishops) were scattered along the Silk Road like beads in a strand. Timothy I, a Patriarch of the Church of the East, oversaw the establishment of a church center in Tibet. In 781 CE, just as Timothy began his leadership of the Church of the East, Chinese Nestorians in Chang'an, imperial capital of the Tang Empire, put up a nine-foot-tall limestone monument called the Nestorian Stele; it celebrated 150 years of Christianity in China. The monument describes Christ in Buddhist language: "[Christ] fixed the extent of the Eight Boundaries [the Eight Consciousnesses of Mahayana Buddhism], thus completing the truth and freeing it from dross [worthlessness]; he opened the gate of the three constant principles [impermanence, suffering, and nonself], introducing life and destroying death." ..Syncretism of cultures and traditions developed in many different contexts during the classical period: Hinduism is a highly syncretic religion that developed and spread through diverse parts of the Indian subcontinent; Mesopotamian culture and legal codes influenced Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures; and Greek culture influenced Judaism as Alexander of Macedon’s empire spread east.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/ancient-medieval/syncretism/a/syncretism-article

Being relative within itself & how others r relating to it, either accepting or rejecting it, also make it universal.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.
everything under the Tao is not universal; those concepts/things r parts of the Tao just like any other phenomena.

First of all, this doesn't answer my objection that your admission of the existence of a universal undermines your claim that "everything is relative"...your reference now to an "eternal Tao" should make this obvious: how can something not be universal if it's eternal? Oh, and btw., "according to science" the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning, so your "eternal Tao" is either a rejection of that scientific fact (which is weird, as you've claimed that we acquire all our knowledge through experience and science) or you are starting to introduce super-natural concepts now, which would also contradict your earlier claim that we acquire our knowledge through science; how can science determine that some "Tao" exists and is eternal?
Second, even if you concede that point and now claim that "everything except the Tao is relative" (or, since you're trying to arbitrarily push this one abstraction higher, "everything except the eternal Tao is relative") you still need to justify why things like logic and morality are not universal. You are obviously assuming logic when you make statements and the fact that you engage with others on this forum in a "normal" manner means you assume that others use the same principles of logic to understand your statements; why, if everything except the "eternal Tao" is relative, does logic still act as a universal? The same goes for morality since it is implicitly assumed that one should use logic in one's interaction with others when having normal conversations.
There are more objections but I'll let you answer these first.

No, t's not a moral claim, but observation: when people loose their morality, after losing/not knowing The Way (Tao) before that, they rely on ritual to help them.

What exactly is the scope of that "observation"? If there are no universal principles except the eternal Tao, you can't generalize after observing a couple of people behave to all people as that would require universal principles underlying the behavior of all people. Further, a "ritual" does not escape morality: even if your "ritual" is extremely primitive, like "I'll do what I want", you're still asserting that this is justified and that you yourself should act this way; so morality would not be lost. If, on the other hand, you're referring to some system of morality that you come up with yourself and then use to judge someone else's actions, then you're again violating your assertion that "everything except the eternal Tao is relative" since under relativism you should grant the other person their own moral system and not assume yours as universal.

Since different peoples use different rituals/teachings, conflicts within &/ between them arise.

That's a non-sequitur. If all people had the ritual "I kill everyone I see" there would also be conflict even though everyone has the same ritual.

right or wrong isn't relevant here- as nature is indifferent, the stronger & the open minded r the 1s better equipped to survive.

You can claim nature to be indifferent, sure, although in reality "nature" is not conscious, so it is incapable of being indifferent or giving a crap, but your claim literally was that "cats are better than 'weak-minded religious people', because the ancient Egyptians worshipped them"
Implicit in this ridiculous assertion is the moral claim that acting in a way that leads to being worshipped is preferable over, e.g., leading a more humble life. So, just in case it isn't clear: You are asserting that people should get other people to worship them (as well as that they shouldn't be religious, because you arbitrarily define that as being weak-minded). And in this reply you seem to want to tie that to some Darwinian notion of "survival of the fittest"; apart from the fact that Darwinism was used both by the British in their exploitation of weaker countries as well as by the Nazis in their genocides, how do you derive the notion that we should use "survival of the fittest" as a moral principle? Also, if you actually believe that, why are you wasting your time on this forum and not spending your time caring for the multitude of children you must have fathered as a result of your Darwinian efforts to propagate your genes?

FYI, I'm of the Jewish, Italian & Slavic descent, grew up & educated in E. Europe as well as USA

So? Multiple ethnic backgrounds, moved all over the place, spreading atheism with some incoherent "Eastern" pseudo-religious flavor...sounds like the typical Western metropolitan "anywhere" to me. You may claim that you're not a liberal, but you sure as heck share a lot of characteristics with them and you seem to be thoroughly westernized.

& been exposed to the ROC rituals. They no longer impress me.

They're not supposed to "impress you"...it's not the circus.

hair splitting & nitpicking again! Lao Tzu (whom Confucius called a Dragon) was asked to write his philosophy by a border guard before allowing him to cross to the West.

What a convenient "accident"...it's also extremely unbelievable since there's no reason why a border guard should ask a random person to write down any kind of philosophy; so obviously the border guard knew that this Lao Tzu guy was preaching some stuff. Furthermore, why didn't he just write down some false or incomplete philosophy if his actual principle is "not to speak"? Could have been done a lot faster if he had just made up some short philosophical treatise of arbitrary nature. Also, how do you know that this isn't what he did? Maybe he didn't tell you everything in those writings or half of it is just false in his mind.
Also, if you truly believe in this stuff, why are you even joining forums on the internet? If to be silent is better than to speak you probably shouldn't be doing that...but then again, this whole Taoism thing, as I've already pointed out in a generalized form in my last post, is just something to keep you distracted from the hard questions of life...i.e. just a typically liberal coping strategy. You obviously don't actually take it seriously.

I'm not like u, telling others what they should or should not believe in; I post my replies as a mental exercise- take it or leave it.  

Yeah right...you're just going around, providing smear after smear against my world view and calling billions of people "weak-minded", because you want to "exercise your mind"...what a load of bollocks. You already posted two posts ago that you get no benefit from discussing religion with me, which contradicts this assertion. This whole thing started because you decided to express your hatred for Christianity in a passive-aggressive way by claiming that it is responsible for a genocide. When I objected, you thought you could easily dismantle my objections, except you couldn't. And now you're just frustrated that I'm not some clueless Evangelical but can actually defend my faith and dismantle yours. I already told you that I'm willing to drop this and that I only have a faint hope of convincing you (which is a far cry from "telling others what to believe")...yet you keep smearing my faith, probably because now your pride is bound up with this discussion and you can't let it go without having the last word, as further evidenced by e.g. "DON'T BOTHER TO REPLY" in your last post (also, has that ever worked? ). In short, it's just a rationalization of your own behavior to make yourself feel better and far from the truth.

Since Russia is the successor of the Golden Horde

So now we're engaging in revisionist history, huh? Just because a country is occupied, doesn't mean that after its liberation it becomes the "successor" of the occupant. Unless you want to call Eastern European countries as well as France etc. "successors to the German Third Reich", which is absolutely ridiculous.
Chingis Khan was a degenerate, albeit successful, warlord, mass rapist, mass murderer and conqueror, so it's no surprise you like him with your Darwinian morals; as to the longevity of the Golden Horde: it's a well known historical fact that it didn't last very long, certainly not compared to the Byzantine Empire, because you can't build a stable empire on "might makes right". However, this, again, begs the question of why we should follow Darwinian morals in the first place.

if it the Eastern Orthodoxy was good for them, it would be more popular ever since its Russian  missionaries went there;

Non-sequitur (to be precise: consensus fallacy): just because something is unpopular, doesn't make it wrong or bad...although I see you're now applying Darwinism even to religions
By that logic, btw, Christianity (if defined in the loose sense in which you want to understand it anyway, i.e. encapsulating all "denominations") is the best religion on the planet because it has the most followers So why aren't you going around extolling the virtues of Christianity, it being the global winner in the race for survival?
How many times is that now, that your statements completely self-contradict in this discussion? 20? 50? Is it possible you never had someone with basic analytical ability actually listen to what you say?

no, I don't, especially when dealing with a believer who is incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Since everything is relative, what's best in 1 set of circumstances may not be as good as in the other. That's why spontaneity, open mindedness & syncretism r embraced by Taoism & Asian cultures in general. Claiming to poseas the so-called "Truth", & calling it the "only Truth", is an affront, as to them there's more than 1 truth.  

More incoherent drivel...you already admitted that "everything is relative" is false since "the eternal Tao", in your view, is universal, so not everything is relative. Second, you keep arbitrarily inventing axioms that are exempt from your self-contradicting relativism: is it a universal truth that there's more than one truth? You claim so, which violates your relativism, yet again. If it isn't a universal truth that there are multiple truths, how can you claim for everyone that there are?
Also, "spontaneity and open-mindedness" have nothing to do with this...these are just typical lefty-liberal feel-good terms to throw around and virtue-signal. If you were truly open-minded you wouldn't be so stubborn and unreasonable but actually consider that maybe you haven't thought about this stuff enough (e.g. you didn't even know what logic is) and be open to have your mind changed when faced with devastating arguments against your position.
Also, you still keep pretending as though Asians or Chinese people are all Buddhists or Taoists...maybe that was the case in your little hippie group that you toured Asia with, but the reality is quite different.

To them, as to me, it's plain disgusting when some1 boasts/claims to possess a teaching or ideology that he hopes evey1 else should accept & conform to.

First, bad grammar: "hopes that everyone else should conform to X" doesn't make sense in this context. I said I hope that everyone becomes Orthodox and I certainly think that it's the right thing for everyone to do. That doesn't mean I'm forcing anything onto anyone.
Second, it's, again, hypocritical: Obviously you want me to conform to your idea that there is "more than one truth" and abandon Christianity; you even suggested to me personally that I should look into Taoism. That is the one truth that you want me to accept (the one truth that there are multiple truths). So you are doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing and should therefore find your own actions "disgusting", which leads me to the third point: you, while trying to push your own ideology / pseudo-religion on me, find it "disgusting" when I argue against your points with an actually coherent world view that correctly professes that there is such a thing as universal truth. Disgust is a rather visceral term that one typically applies to e.g. garbage or vermin and the like; when people start attributing "disgust" to other people, however, that quickly becomes problematic: as one of the more recent and famous examples, Hitler found the actions of Jews, as he perceived them, disgusting, which is what motivated his genocide...watch the movie "Der ewige Jude" and you will see how he is trying to portray them as acting consistently in a disgusting manner. This kind of thinking, IMO, comes primarily from you abandoning any Eastern roots you once may have had and becoming thoroughly westernized and thus drenched in this culture of supremacy. Combined with your Darwinian morals and disgust toward other people's behavior if they don't conform to your idea of how they should behave, I could rightly conclude that You have the morality of Adolf Hitler. I sincerely hope that you'll take back that statement and repent; otherwise, may the LORD have mercy on your soul.

However, since I'm not accusing all Westerners of this behavior and some here might still profit from me debunking attacks on Christianity, I'll add the relevant comments below:

Some1 said: "when gossips grow old, they become myths". The Christian accepted sources came after more ancient sources, so they would produce more corrupt/incorrect info.

This is obviously discounting oral tradition, which can't be dated, and divine inspiration, which is proven, e.g. by the many (>200) Old Testament prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament; for example, the chapter in Isaiah (ch. 53...this is the Old Testament) that I suggested you read clearly prophecies the coming of Jesus Christ (witnessed in the New Testament). This chapter is part of the documents referred to as the "Dead Sea Scrolls", which have been scientifically dated to more than 100 BC, clearly predating the actual coming of J.C., which itself is also backed up by sources outside the Bible.

if there r gaps, then the Bible (which I did read) isn't a complete record & therefore can't be claimed as a reliable source.

Nope. That is only relevant for claims regarding the age of the Earth, which is not communicated in the Bible. Just because a source doesn't contain the information you want it to, doesn't make it unreliable. The gaps are there because the genealogies would have become way too long and we are supposed to know only about the more significant people, not literally everyone who ever lived.

Bible scholars' & clerics' calculations which many accepted as correct & true were proven wrong

Scientific or other speculations of scholars and clerics don't automatically constitute dogma and there is no dogma regarding the age of the Earth or other scientific deliberations. What the RCC does is not our business; they don't have our theology and thus don't have the full Truth so you can't claim that proper Christianity is responsible for what they did, including the Inquisition, which didn't happen in the Orthodox Church.

all of them r written long after the alleged christ resurrection, & many refer to each other or other non-contemporary sources.

So? Alexander the Great and his achievements are derived from sources several centuries after he actually lived and yet it is uncontroversial in ancient historian circles to accept them as proper evidence; sources confirming important aspects of the New Testament narrative are far closer to the actual events and include eye witness accounts of what happened. Even outside the Bible, e.g. Tacitus, references contemporary records in his own writings.

As stated before, since that particular logic & morality didn't succeed in making Russia the greatest place on Earth since the year of 988AD, I rest my case.

Ridiculous. First, greatest according to whose standard? Yours? Don't make me laugh. Second, just because something isn't popular or even effective, doesn't make it not true...things are not automatically better because they succeed according to some Darwinian criteria. Third, as I already pointed out, even if we were to take that approach, Christianity clearly wins: the Byzantine Empire was the longest lasting empire ever and was properly Orthodox and compared to the different flavors of Islam or Buddhism etc., the "different flavors of Christianity" (in your syncretistic understanding) have the most followers and have spread over the greatest land mass.

I've read all of them- u need to have an account to open that article .

Your link points to a file on your own hard drive (also, you just doxxed yourself...your username on your computer is apparently "Sydney" and you use the Windows OS). I obviously can't access files on your hard drive from my computer this way. This seems to be one of your "boomer moments".

my arguments r their arguments- if they don't impress u, I could care less since it's not my problem.

Then I'll just post a link of my own: go read Lopuchin's extensive commentary on the Bible, which implicitly deals with pretty much all of the objections in your links.
If anyone takes any of those arguments seriously and doesn't have time to read that, they can PM me and I'll try my best to explain when I have time.
However, I'll still give some general comments:

1) Paine's Deism, which he argues for in the book you referenced, has no proper epistemological grounding and no proper grounding for morality. In his words "My own mind is my own church. ", so basically that he can arbitrarily decide what is right or wrong for himself, which is quite similar to the relativism you're professing. Since he wrote a (somewhat successful) book about it, it would be ridiculous not to assume that he wanted to spread that kind of belief, which conflicts with his own assertions (just like you: why, if everyone should have their own truth, are you arguing against my truth?). He also says "But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself.", which, whether true or not, is clearly a universal as well as moral claim, which also contradicts his pseudo-relativistic morality.

2) Regarding the problem of Evil there are many possible responses; one of the more interesting approaches, IMO, is laid out in this talk by John Lennox.
Probably the most effective argument from a purely philosophical standpoint is that one needs to properly and coherently justfify epistemic and moral grounding before talking about evil in the first place...if "evil" is just arbitrarily defined by a person complaining about its existence then I may as well say "just change your definitions" or "why should I care about your definition of evil?"...this is not going to be emotionally satisfying, of course, and a very unsophisticated approach to the objection but it's a perfectly valid, logical refutation. If you can't coherently show what evil is then you don't have proper grounding to complain about its existence.
A very brief and over-simplified explanation from the Christian perspective is that God does not and did not intend evil, but He gives us perfect freedom of choice and thus, in our Fallen State, we occasionally choose to do evil. Sickness and Death are also a consequence of this as the Fall was a universal event that introduced universal corruption; Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, were immortal and could not suffer sickness before the Fall, as will be the case again in Heaven and on the New Earth in the Eschaton, for those who have properly participated in Theosis (subordinating your will to God's) in this life. For them, free will is still there, but limited, compared to the status quo in their earthly life; they will only be able to choose between "multiple Goods", but won't be able to choose Evil. This way, God makes sure that we can have perfect freedom in choosing whether we want to continue on in the afterlife by doing the will of God (choosing among multiple Goods) or doing our own will (which includes choices of Evil). In the Orthodox view, God doesn't actively torture and punish those who are not in Heaven. Rather, everyone is bathed equally in His Love, and those who reject it will experience that as pain since they hate God and can't "get out of it", while those who accept God's Love rejoice in that state. This lasts forever since you can't change your relationship with God much after you die (since you leave what we perceive as space and time). For a proper, detailed understanding of these issues I would refer to the Church Father's teachings on such topics.

3) Regarding the article in Asia Times, which is a commentary of Shay's book "In Good Faith": How does that help your claims? The article basically roasts New Atheists, such as Sam Harris, quotes Gelernter and Berlinski regarding their comments on the "collapse of Charles Darwin’s theory in light of evidence (or lack of it)", e.g. that the fossil record completely contradicts Darwinian expectations ("The incremental development of new species is largely not there.") or that mathematical modelling shows that the "odds of a random mutation leading to an improvement in the adaptability of a living organism are effectively zero", a lot of which I actually agree with...Darwinian evolution is an utterly ridiculous and completely unproven theory (see Evolution News for in-depth, scientific articles against Darwinism). It closes with "Shay’s book does not hector the reader to accept religious faith. Rather it demonstrates that the premise of biblical religion requires a leap of faith no greater than that of the atheists. Its consequence is the birth of human freedom, by making human beings free moral agents.", which, again, I fully agree with. So this article actually does far more to support my position than yours, which, again, demonstrates that you probably didn't actually read it.

4) The last article is completely ridiculous and can be refuted by any remotely competent commentary on the Bible (just go read Lopuchin's commentary on the verses cited in that article).

Christianity is the product of such mixing:

No, it isn't. The first paragraph you posted mainly talks about the "Church of the East", which is not Orthodox, and merely claims that hermits like St. Simeon were influenced by other religions while providing no proof of that (again, this is very basic: correlation != causation...contemplative prayer in the Orthodox Church is based on the Bible and Orthodox theology) and the second paragraph commits the same fallacy while talking mostly about the RCC, which is also not Orthodox. None of it has to do with Orthodox Christian theology.
I do agree that Eastern religions and some other religioins have syncretistic elements, but that merely shows how they are false.

Regarding "KGB Patriarchs": I already stated that ROCOR fought hard to eliminate any remnant of so-called Sergianism in the ROC before they reunited and Kyrill became Patriarch after this. The Guardian article is not even about Patriarch Kyrill and the Moscow Times article operates purely on conjecture by quoting "cooperation by the ROC and the FSB", which, even in the article itself is specified as being about christianizing the FSB to help counteract the culture war waged by the West against Russia, which tries to turn especially young Russians into mindless, atheistic, consumerist drones (like most Westerners are). I fully agree with such cooperation and it doesn't prove that the ROC is controlled by the FSB one bit. The other "proof" is that some "dissident priest" says that "his studies of declassified KGB archives indicated that Kirill might have had ties to the KGB while working for the Russian Orthodox Church in the West in the 1980s", which is just a smear and not actual proof. If he had actual proof he would be specific about it and all the Western and Russian opposition media would parade it up and down 24/7.

don't try to shove ur version of it down any 1's throat

Me refuting your ridiculous smears of my world view is called proper argumentation...I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. You could very easily stop me from posting further comments here by not further smearing Christianity, as I've already pointed out multiple times now. I've also pointed out how it is atheists and other anti-Christian groups who absolutely shove their views down everyone else's throat, e.g. by using the (in Germany) state-enforced mandatory school attendance (no home schooling allowed) as well as requirements for curricula of private schools (so that you're essentially not allowed to open your own, truly Orthodox school) to systematically abuse and indoctrinate children into atheism and liberalism while those who refuse are arrested, imprisoned and have their children taken away from them! And where does that come from, btw? From the same "disgust" for people who think differently that you have admitted to. You people think that groups with other world views should be eliminated, because you're "the enlightened ones" who can't possibly be wrong (while in reality your world views are entirely incoherent and laughable and, in your case, you didn't even know what logic is) and since genocide is a bit unpopular after Hitler you use force in more creative ways.

Now, remember, since "silence is better than speech" and since "discussing religion with [me] is of no benefit to [you]", the rational and consistent thing would be to let it go.
...but of course you won't, since you don't actually care about your self-professed principles.

Btw. I have no problem if mods wanna move this to "General" or something, but I also don't mind it remaining here; like I said, world views are greatly influential on the geopolitical stance of countries and their military doctrines, so this could be considered (marginally) relevant as pushing atheism against several groups inside the country is a big part of the activity of the Chinese government.

U asked for it: 
The Mikhailov Files: Patriarch Kirill and the KGB by Felix Corley
In our state, such a mechanism in an appropriate form has not been worked out, therefore it is necessary to think seriously about the legal procedure for access to archives, the sooner the better. At the same time it is important to display the greatest concern for our helpers. They must be absolutely certain that they will not find themselves in an awkward position thanks to our fault, and that concern for them - and for their families - is our duty. KGB Chair Vladimir Kryuchkov answers question on access to KGB archives, at meeting of secretaries of party organisations of central KGB, 15 April 1989 Sbornik KGB SSSR, No. 133, 1989, p. 18 Unlike with his predecessor as Russian Orthodox Patriarch, Aleksi II, the date the KGB recruited Patriarch Kirill is unknown. The earliest known mention of the future patriarch as a recruited agent in available KGB materials dates from February 1972, when he was just 25. Already a young priest, he was a protégé of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad (KGB agent ‘Svyatoslav’) and the first mention in known KGB files came when the two of them travelled to Australasia. Although the KGB materials refer to him only as ‘Mikhailov’ (it was very unusual in internal KGB documents for any person, whether agent or victim, to be referred to by name before the late 1980s), it is clear that the codename relates to Kirill, born Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyaev in Leningrad on 20 November 1946. The choice of the codename ‘Mikhailov’ might have been a nod to his father Mikhail and thus his patronymic Mikhailovich. ‘Mikhailov’ was a relatively frequently used KGB codename (as recently as 1986, the KGB planned to use an agent ‘Mikhailov’ in a joint operation with Czechoslovak state security against the Pen writers’ club). However, it is not difficult to determine which references are to Kirill. Documents from the central KGB archives in Moscow (now held by one of the KGB’s successors, the FSB) reveal tasks Kirill was assigned as an agent. Most of these relate to his participation in international religious organisations, including the World Council of Churches and the Conference of European Churches, and entail providing information and promoting decisions and candidates for posts favourable to the Soviet Union. These documents - which were produced by the 4th department of the KGB Fifth Directorate (the department that controlled religious affairs) - were seen by a number of researchers after the archives were briefly opened in the wake of the failed August 1991 coup, but access was then closed again after the Russian Orthodox leadership protested about the extent of the revelations. Unfortunately, researchers did not reveal the full contents of each report, confining themselves to brief and tantalising extracts from the titles and text of the reports. Documents from the KGB First Chief Directorate archive in Moscow, noted by the then archivist Vasiliy Mitrokhin before his 1984 retirement, reveal that Kirill was an agent when he served as Moscow Patriarchate representative to the World Council of Churches in Geneva. This is hardly a surprise: any Soviet religious leader who travelled abroad would have been a KGB agent. The documents also reveal that the KGB was aware Kirill was corresponding with Rome-based Catholic professor Eduard Huber, rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, even if the KGB backed away from attempting to recruit Huber as an agent. Another intriguing mention is of Kirill’s May 1980 assignment to visit the Russian Orthodox parish in Baden-Baden, to the annoyance of the diocesan head, Archbishop Iriney Susemihl. A KGB agent with the codename ‘Icarus’ (Ikar in Russian), Susemihl later became famous for having recruited US military intelligence officer Colonel George Trofimoff. Mitrokhin did not note the reason for Kirill’s visit to the parish. Interestingly, despite Kirill’s recruitment as a KGB agent in the late 1960s or early 1970s, he was still listed as late as February 1983 as directly subordinate to the KGB department of Leningrad Region (which included the city of Leningrad). Agents, whether of the local or national KGB, were required to undergo periodic ‘control meetings’, where they were questioned by officers above the level of their usual case officer. In Kirill’s case, he is known to have had two such meetings in 1983, conducted by officers of the 4th department of the Fifth Directorate. In September 1983 the officer interviewing him was the then head of the department, Colonel Nikolai Romanov. Kirill figures at least twice in joint plans by the KGB and the StB security agency of Czechoslovakia, one of the Soviet Union’s more dependable allies in Eastern Europe. The November 1978 joint plan of action between the KGB Fifth Directorate and StB Directorate X (which similarly controlled dissidents and religion) of Czechoslovakia’s National Security Corps in the Interior Ministry contained a section which appears to be a wish list of aims in the area of religion. Kirill is one of two KGB agents assigned to help achieve the wide-ranging tasks outlined. Similarly, a joint 1986 plan by the KGB Fifth Directorate and StB Directorate X identified Kirill as one of three KGB agents and four Czechoslovak agents expected to promote favourable candidates and resolutions at the Conference of European Churches. All senior clerical appointments in the Soviet era were made by the KGB and mediated through the government's Council for Religious Affairs (the public face of the 4th department of the KGB Fifth Directorate) - and many junior appointments besides. Kirill’s collaboration was nothing exceptional - almost all senior leaders of all officially-recognised religious faiths - including the Catholics, Baptists, Adventists, Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Church, Muslims and Buddhists - were recruited KGB agents. Although in public the KGB never acknowledged its role in controlling religious affairs in the Soviet Union, in private it made no secret of it. The KGB leadership approved a briefing paper No. 48s ‘On the use by the organs of the KGB of the possibilities of the Russian Orthodox Church in counter-espionage measures within the country and abroad’ on 28 July 1970. In 1982 the 4th department of the KGB Fifth Directorate boasted that through ‘leading agents, the ROC, Georgian and Armenian Churches hold firmly to positions of loyalty’ to the Soviet state.  The following are all the known references to Patriarch Kirill (KGB codename Mikhailov) in publicly available KGB materials: February 1972 ‘To New Zealand and Australia went the agents “Svyatoslav” [Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov] and “Mikhailov” to the meeting of the WCC CC [World Council of Churches Central Committee].’ FSB Central Archive, f. 5, op. 19, por. No. 273, d. E62, p. 90 January 1973 ‘The agents of the organs of the KGB “Magistr” [Archbishop Antoni Melnikov] and “Mikhailov” were sent to Thailand and India to take part in the work of the WCC. The agents exerted a good influence on the work of the Council and provided information of operational interest on the situation in the WCC and information on the personal character of individual figures. […] Dep. Head of the 4th dept of the 5th directorate of the KGB attached to the USSR CM Lieutenant-colonel [Vladimir Vasilievich] Fitsev’ FSB Central Archive, f. 5, op. 20, por. No. 304, d. Zh64, p. 32 February 1973 ‘Visiting the USSR as a guest of the Moscow Patriarchate was the general secretary of the WCC Philip Potter, on whom via the agents “Svyatoslav”, “Adamant” [Metropolitan Yuvenaly Poyarkov], “Mikhailov” and “Ostrovsky” [Archbishop Filaret Vakhromeev] was exerted a favourable … influence. Information on the activity of the WCC having an operational interest was received. Head of the 4th dept of the 5th directorate of the KGB attached to the USSR CM Lieutenant-colonel [Yevgeni Dmitrievich] Kubyshkin’ FSB Central Archive, f. 5, op. 20, por. No. 304, d. Zh64, pp. 101-2 1975 “Mikhailov” – representative of the Moscow Patriarchate at the World Council of Churches in Geneva. KGB agent. Churchill Archives Centre, The Papers of Vasiliy Mitrokhin, MITN, 2/1, p. 33 THE MIKHAILOV FILES: PATRIARCH KIRILL AND THE KGB/Felix Corley 4 24 November 1978 Future Plan Of Cooperation between Directorate X of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the CSSR [Czechoslovakia] and the 5th Directorate of the USSR Committee for State Security [KGB] for 1978 – 1980 The state security organs of the CSSR and USSR have in their possession information testifying to the active subversive activity of the special services of the adversary and, connected with them, foreign nationalist, Zionist, reactionary clerical and other anti-socialist subversive centres and organisations of imperialist states, directed against the CSSR and the Soviet Union. […] To realise joint proposals and seek out new operational possibilities for creating conditions for and agent penetration of the Vatican, the World Council of Churches and other reactionary church organisations with the aim of discovering plans and disrupting actions being prepared against the USSR, CSSR and other countries of the socialist commonwealth. To facilitate by the use of agents the deepening of dissension within leading international reactionary church circles in support of progressive forces in this milieu. To resolve these questions to coordinate joint measures on the “SPOJENI” case; to continue work to strengthen the position of [agent] “PROFESSOR” in the Vatican and to create the conditions for links to be established between him and the Lvov vice-province via the PPR [Poland]; to strengthen work with “[Philip] POTTER” (WCC [general secretary]) and other persons who could influence the policy pursued by this organisation in the interests of the countries of the socialist commonwealth; to support Bulgarian friends in promoting professor T. SABEEV [Todor Sabev] (PRB [Bulgaria]) to the post of 3rd general secretary of the WCC; evaluate and analyse materials on [Lukas] Vischer, Bauman and others, suspected of links with the special services of the adversary, with the aim of their subsequent compromise in front of society. Via agent and other possibilities to continue work to strengthen the position of the Christian Peace Conference (CPC) in the international arena. To use the developing favourable circumstances in this regard to promote agents of the security organs of the CSSR and USSR in foreign centres and special services of the adversary. To coordinate agent-operational measures to intercept the channels of communication of emissaries of foreign reactionary organisations of sects, conducting subversive work against the CSSR, USSR and other socialist countries. To devise joint counter-intelligence measures to prevent the anti-social activity of leaders and active participants of “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, “Seventh-day Adventists”, “pentecostals” and other sects. Devote special attention in this to the cultivation of sect leaders who try to conduct illegal, hostile activity. With these aims to use agents “Mikhailov”, “Petrov” (USSR KGB 5th Directorate), “Congress” and “Oldrich” (Directorate X of the CSSR Interior Ministry). […] Head of Directorate X of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the CSSR Major General V. [Vladimir] Starek Head of the 5th Directorate of the USSR Committee of State Security Lieutenant-General F. [Filipp Denisovich] Bobkov Security Services Archive, Prague https://www.ustrcr.cz/data/pdf/projekty/mezinarodni-spoluprace/sssr/spoluprace33ru.pdf THE MIKHAILOV FILES: PATRIARCH KIRILL AND THE KGB/Felix Corley 5 Late 1970s “Sportsman” – Eduard Huber, born 1922 in the village of Oberdorf near Munich, German, citizen of FRG [West Germany], lives in Rome. Jesuit, rector of the Gregorian University [actually rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute 1975-81], professor of philosophy and theology. Was in the Soviet Union, studied the heritage of Plekhanov at Moscow state university. “Sportsman” – under cultivation by the KGB 5th directorate, 4th department. “Sportsman” maintains correspondence with “Luch”, an agent of the UKGB of Dnepropetrovsk Region, and agent “Mikhailov” of Leningrad UKGB. “Luch” – Catholic priest, teacher of the department of scientific atheism. “Mikhailov” – from among the church people. The question was considered of inviting “Sportsman” to the Soviet Union via the Moscow Patriarchate with the 5th department of the FCD [First Chief Directorate – foreign intelligence] being engaged in cultivating him with the prospect of using him from the positions of [KGB] residencies abroad. But the view was reached of the inappropriateness of the intelligence service conducting cultivation of “Sportsman”, as it conceals in itself the threat of the security of intelligence work abroad and the possibility of links between “Sportsman” and the special services of the adversary are not excluded. Churchill Archives Centre, The Papers of Vasiliy Mitrokhin, MITN, 2/1, p. 15 1980 “Mikhailov” – KGB agent. In May 1980, on instruction from the Moscow Patriarchate, “Mikhailov” visited the church community in Baden-Baden, which was under the temporary leadership of “Icarus” [KGB agent Archbishop Iriney Susemihl]. The latter expressed his dissatisfaction that “Mikhailov” visited the parish of the Russian Orthodox Church in Baden-Baden without his knowledge. Churchill Archives Centre, The Papers of Vasiliy Mitrokhin, MITN, 2/1, p. 124 February 1983 ‘To Switzerland to participate in measures to prepare for the WCC assembly and in the work of the Executive Committee were sent agents “Mikhailov” and “Konstantin”. Komarov, Shitikov, Polyakov’ FSB Central Archive, f. 6, op.6/16, por. No. 24, d.T-175, p. 155 February 1983 ‘Control meetings were held with agents: “Adamant” – [Nikolai Nikolaevich] Romanov, Fitsev “Mikhailov” (UKGB for LR [Leningrad Region]) – Komarov “Skala” (UKGB for Kharkov Region) – [Valentin Ivanovich] Timoshevsky, Zotov’ FSB Central Archive, f. 6, op.6/16, por. No. 24, d.T-175, pp. 163-4 THE MIKHAILOV FILES: PATRIARCH KIRILL AND THE KGB/Felix Corley 6 February 1983 ‘On the results of an assessment of measures in relation to the agents “Mikhailov” (UKGB for LR) and “Adamant” (5th directorate), a comprehensive report was prepared. Shitikov’ FSB Central Archive, f. 6, op.6/16, por. No. 24, d.T-175, p. 164 September 1983 ‘Control meetings: “Magistr”, “Mikhailov” – UKGB of Leningrad Region – N.N. Romanov “Adamant” – N.N. Romanov “Vadim” - UKGB of Chernovtsy Region – Zotov Head of the 4th dept of the 5th directorate of the KGB attached to the USSR CM Colonel N.N. Romanov’ FSB Central Archive, f. 6, op.6/16, por. No. 27, d.T-175, t. 4, p. 163 July 1984 ‘To Switzerland, as part of the ROC delegation to the CC of the WCC, went the agents “Ostrovsky”, “Kuznetsov” [Aleksey Buyevsky], “Mikhailov”, “Remark” and others, having the task of promoting to the post of general secretary of the WCC a candidate acceptable to us. Chosen for this role was Emilio Castro, whose election was supported by, as well as the ROC, the churches of the socialist countries. Comrs. [V.D.] Lyutikov, Zotov, Shitikov, Bolotinsky’ FSB Central Archive, f. 6, op.7/16, por. No. 24, d.U-175, t. 4, pp. 122 October 1986 Prague List of joint agent-operational measures to further the aims of Directorate X of the National Security Corps [NSC] of the CSSR [Czechoslovakia] and the 5th Directorate of the Committee for State Security of the USSR […] 29/ By means of the operational potential of agents “ZANETA” [Anezka Ebertova], “ONDREJ” [Dusan Ondrejovich], “JOHN”, “MIREK” (NSC, CSSR), “DROZDOV” [Metropolitan Aleksi Ridiger], “REMARK”, “MIKHAILOV” (KGB, USSR) and others, to take measures to support individuals who have, in our view, a favourable outlook and to put them in the posts of chairman and deputy chairman of the presidium of the Conference of European Churches (CEC), strengthening the peaceful tendency of this organisation, and securing a realisation of the adoption of positive resolutions at the 9th General Assembly [in Stirling, Scotland, September 1986]. […] Security Services Archive, Prague
https://www.ustrcr.cz/data/pdf/clanky/stb-kgb-spoluprace2.pdf

If Pimen (who's official bio. omits the 1941-45 war years- I heard he was a cryptologic communication tech for Stalin) & Alexi II were KGB agents, why, even if not under its control, Kirill shouldn't be closely linked with FSB, even with the absence of any official state ideology now?  It's a rhetorical question- I'm tired of ur wrong assumptions about me & my posts & don't need ur answers & lectures. I don't follow any particular human invented morality, ideology, or socio-political theory. Lao Tzu was well known as a philosopher, even though his entire teaching wasn't open to every1; he wrote the Tao Te Ching for those who would accept it, knowing that most wouldn't anyway.
Now, if u want to be a prisoner of ur beliefs & be a pawn in some1 else's hands, that's fine with me. 
Deceptions and Myths of the Bible   Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth  Christianity Before Christ



The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours

But u r commiting a big mistake if u r hoping/expecting that others will do the same by discarding their accepted truths, customs & beliefs. China has enough internal problems/issues to deal with, even w/o bringing yet another theology that already produced its own, internal, & failed to solve many of Russia's own secular, problems. She is only great in size, past sacrifices, victories/failures (its military/gov. tradition was heavily influenced by the Golden Horde) & other achievements; however, there r many things left to be desired. 
At the very least, the Chinese r not any more stupid than them or any1 else, for that matter.
So, don't waste ur time- from now on, ur posts will be ignored. Enough said.

I knew you couldn't resist...what are principles worth, when there's atheism to spread, huh?

First, your wall of text...even though it isn't reasonable to expect me to sift through unformatted propaganda, I still did, partly to be better armed for future attempts by you or others to propagate anti-Christian smears and partly for the benefit of any doubters.
The text does two things, in essence: first, it tries to tie the person of the now-Patriach Kirill to the KGB code name "Mikhailov"; second, it presents references (which you also posted) to unclassified KGB documents that contain references to an agent with code name Mikhailov.
There are indeed such references (your links), but, as the authors of the text themselves are forced to admit, "Mikhailov" was a very popular KGB code name that was used for many agents; they then state that "it is not difficult to determine which references are to Kirill." without actually proving that; they simply lean on some non-public documents that are alleged to have been partially revealed to them (without naming or linking to them) that are supposed to do this. They also assert that "Mikhailov" was chosen for the now-Patriarch Kirill, because his father was named "Mikhail" (and the Russian tradition being that the child takes the patronym as a sort of "second name", so in the case of "Mikhail", the patronym would be "Mikhailov", which basically means "of Mikhail"), which is just really stupid: why would a code name, which, like a password, is supposed to not be easily decipherable (guessable), be a reference to personal data of the one hidden behind it? If anything, this is evidence against the assertion that "Mikhailov" is a code name used to hide the identity of Kirill.
In short: this "evidence" does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Patriarch Kirill worked for the KGB.
And, of course, you've presented no evidence whatsoever that he now works for the FSB.
Lastly, as I've already pointed out in a previous post, a Patriarch is not the RC Pope; we don't consider him infallible, he has far less control over the Church, which is quite decentralized, and he can't just make up dogma on his own. That which makes us Orthodox - the Orthodox Christian theology - cannot be changed by some Patriarch...this would require an Ecumenical Council (which hasn't occurred for about 1200 years now) involving all the Patriarchs of all local Churches in Eastern Orthodoxy as well as most of the bishops, who need to unanimously agree, and it would need to be accepted by the Body of Christ, which is the Church, i.e. not just the clergy but also the laity. This is the strength of Orthodoxy...it is pretty much impossible to subvert it...entire nations and alliances of nations have tried for more than a millennium, and failed. Thus, even if Patriarch Kirill was an FSB agent, which he isn't, the damage he could do is quite limited.

Now, if u want to be a prisoner of ur beliefs & be a pawn in some1 else's hands, that's fine with me.

So having a coherent world view and not believing in a bunch of self-contradicting nonsense makes me a prisoner and a pawn?
You had your chance to dismantle Orthodoxy and you failed miserably. You are a sore loser. I hope that one day you wake up and stop peddling the idiocies that the Western elites want you to peddle, but I fear you won't.

And since we're apparently doing shout-outs now (you just linking random anti-Christian books on Amazon ):

Everybody check out the following Youtube channels:
Orthodox Reactionary (turns Orthodox books into audiobooks for free...English; I recommend pretty much all of it...buy the books if you can but they're unfortunately hard to come by)
Jay Dyer (I don't like his "comedy" stuff and I don't really share his views on a lot of the conspiracy stuff, but his theology and philosophy videos as well as debates are usually pretty good or even superb; he also recently began a series of catechetical lectures in English with an Orthodox bishop; highly recommended!)
Orthodox Shahada (new channel but already great videos on theology and how to debate Muslims)
Brother Augustine (Jew living in the US, who converted to Orthodoxy...takes a more Western approach but still Orthodox...pretty based)
Patristic Nectar (channel run by an Orthodox priest in the US, converted from Protestantism)
Павел Ильинский (probably my favourite "youtube priest", but Russian language only; lives in Sevastopol, Crimea; has a video series with Bible commentary)

I won't recommend theological books, because that's kind of hard to get into right away, but if you're interested some of the channels mentioned (Jay Dyer, in particular) frequently recommend books to read. You can also check out New Advent for some of the Church Father's writings.

She is only great in size, past sacrifices, victories (its military/gov. tradition was heavily influenced by the Golden Horde) & other achievements; there r many things left to be desired.

Russia is not only the greatest in size, past sacrifices and victories, but also has the brightest future! Your pathetic attempts at historical revisionism and hatred for the Truth will never change that. As to the Oriental "Orthodox" link, I already addressed that sect in a previous post.

At the very least, the Chinese r not any more stupid than any1 else

I know...you're the one with Darwinian notions of supremacy, not me. And the average Chinese person is way smarter than you, which is why I place far more faith in their conversion than in yours.

So, don't waste ur time- from now on, ur posts will be ignored. Enough said.

Hahaha yeah we'll see about that

Interestingly the role of modern science and social science , is far more important than ancient religions . This is not to say that ancient religion should play no part in society . But it is difficult to mediate some of rightful religious influences from wrongful religious influences . For example the idea of the Jinn,  a creature mentioned in the Holy Quran , has left many baffled . They are unable or unwilling to correctly interpret this idea . The reason I believe , is that the correct interpretation will result  in  diminishing this book , as the absolute and infallible word of God , in the eyes of the public . Instead of it being in reality , a formulation of many existing practices and religious ideas from different civilisations of the time , collected and  narrated by man , into a new religion .

That is why , we get advanced Cosmology and Astronomy , the ideas of the precession of Earth revolutions and even existence of Black holes is mixed up with cruel tribal punishments for theft and amputations , also mixed up with pre-Islamic tribal ideas of Fire Gods , or the Jinn ! Belief in the Jinn , as an existing evil physical entity , as mentioned in the Holy Quran , leads to many a psychological problems in people . This idea is perpetuated by the reactionary Right wing Clerics , to maintain absolute power . And an absolute belief in ancient and outdated and misinterpreted religion .

Having said this , no modern social sciences , provides guidance like old religious codes , on the importance of proper dress and attire . A result of experience of humans living in close proximity in agricultural settlements or civilisation . Many a capitalist or Socialist , can theoretically walk around naked !

The Jinn does not exist . The Quranic verse saying they exist in physical reality , is wrong !

https://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/djinn-spirits-of-fire-and-wilderness/

Werewolf wrote:Stop blaming everything on religion with your islamophobia look at judaism and christianity. Bitches here would look the same. Jews and Christians prohibit their women to show hair or skin when following the bible or tora/tanakh/talmud, not allowed to talk upon men without permission of men and so on. They are almost identical. It has nothing to do with religion by itself but by people and in what state they drive a society. You are trying to create here a picture that gives this things an exclusiveness to islam and muslims. Go to Jerusalem and see how women are treated in the ultraorthodox parts of town where they cover their heads, walk behind men, are not allowed in busses next to men just like negros in US had to sit in backside of the bus.

I know of no Christian denomination in the USA that prohibits their women to show hair or skin, or who are not allowed to talk upon men without permission of men. Can you name them, please?

Judaism, I know less about, but having read a book about Hasidic Jews in WW2, there was nothing mentioned in the stories about the persons who where Hasidic Jews during WW2, about prohibitions of women showing hair or skin or not being allowed to talk to men without permission. So, can you give specific examples, please?

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html#:~:text=Middle%20Ages%20During%20the%20Middle%20Ages%2C%20Christian%20women,that%20most%20Christian%20women%20wore%20in%20medieval%20Europe.


The problems with religion as GarryB said does involve interpretations but also involve actual laws that are rendered useless because of changes in society or new Sciences . Some religious laws were even wrong at the time , they were written . Muslims copied the head coverings for women from Christian practices . The reactionary elements in society rely heavily on application of old laws , since this negates modern sciences and maintains their narrow political and economic interests in society . Some of the most rabid and reactionary and anti-socialist elements in society are comprised of Clerics and Mullah and Buddhist priests . It is good to attribute problems to the " Devil " or bad Karma , instead of your local shopkeepers who are robbing you blind ! Here is the Christian version of the Jinn !  The practice of Excorsism by the Church !


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a8g3h2JaVE4

Cowboy's daughter wrote:I know of no Christian denomination in the USA that prohibits their women to show hair or skin, or who are not allowed to talk upon men without permission of men. Can you name them, please?

Probably Werewolf mentioned the "old", "ancient" rules of Christian organizations in the past, when the society was highly patriachical and women rights, gender equality were virtually non-existent, and the ideas of more or less exposing attractive body like we understand today was considered as a sin.

I am not an expert in historical Christianity society, but the demand that women must abandon an attractive appearance or wear clothes hiding the figure was actually common in the past.

It is important to take note that, the rules, regulations, and intepretations of Christian authorities and adherents were not static and constant. Rules and intepretations changes with the changes in economy, social structure, and social power. The intepretation of a "normal" Christian preacher today, in issues like LGBT, family, genders, etc., is very different from a "normal" Chirstian in the Medieval Era, due to the difference in historical context. That also applies to other religions.

Women in ancient patriachical societies, regardless of which religion or region they belonged to, were considered inferior to men and were treated harshly.

For example in ancient Athens, women were not considered as citizens, were isolated from social and political life, and their education was restricted accordingly, in comparison to men.

The practice of wearing clothes for social reasons rather than practical reasons , become important during agriculture . In hunter-gatherer society even now , people remain without much clothes , especially in hot climates . This is for practical reason , as hunting involved running all day after animals . But also displaying the body to potential mate , allows for selection of physically healthy individuals in hunting activities in reproduction and growth .

So if display of body is socially useful in hunter-gatherer society , why not in Agricultural society ? Surely one still needs a healthy body to do this manual work , all day long ? And demands of agriculture are a large supply of healthy individuals . So there is also a need for reproductive growth .

The answer I think is that , with increase in populations during agriculture , and increase in diseases , that the population at one time , must have been disfigured and this may have led together with the increase in wealth of women during agriculture , to women imposing the veil ! This put the women in advantageous position  with respect to the men , in choosing a healthy partner . But no veil was imposed on the men ! The women would select the mates .

This practice and it's importance in marriage , is today brought into sharp focus , by the Bride wearing the veil , and the Groom removing it after marriage ceremony . Now that we know the economic and social reason for the veil , then we understand that it is not needed , in an age where public health is good and there is economic equality between people . The veil did not come about , because women fashioned their hair after beasts and increased therefore appetites in men to dangerous levels !


The Hamilton–Zuk hypothesis posits that sexual ornaments are indicators of parasite- and disease-resistance.[33] To test this hypothesis, red jungle-fowl males were infected with a parasitic roundworm and monitored for growth and developmental changes. Female preference was also evaluated. The researchers found that parasites affected the development and final appearance of ornamental traits and that females preferred males who were not infected. This supports the idea that parasites are an important factor in sexual selection and mate choice.[34]

"...One of many examples of indicator traits is the condition-dependent patch of red feathers around the face and shoulders of the male house finch. This patch varies in brightness among individuals because the pigments that produce the red color (carotenoids) are limited in the environment. Thus, males who have a high-quality diet will have brighter red plumage. In a manipulation experiment, female house finches were shown to prefer males with brighter red patches. Also, males with naturally brighter patches proved better fathers and exhibited higher offspring-feeding rates than duller males.[18] This study is heavily cited in the literature and it provides solid support for the indicator-traits hypothesis that is associated with direct benefits....."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice

All the prophets and saints and Imams are capable of mistakes . especially The Pope and Ayatollahs and Dalai Lama ! The Holy books too ! And I think personally that if there is a God , that he also is capable of mistakes for creating humans ! ( especially my ex-wife ! ) . I am only 20% sure , there is a God ! And 80% , I am sure that I know nothing ! But still 20% certainty is huge compared to total ignorance .

Yet there are some , who will kill others , based on old fables and work of old prophets ! Mostly to justify their monopolistic power ! We must identify these madmen and put them in Looney bin ! Write here about all problems with old religions and problems caused by Religion in the world !



https://www.jesus-resurrection.info/bible-prophets.html

Eye opening historical reconstruction of the early years of Islam.   Muhammad did not refer to an actual man.
See around 47 minutes.

Thank you kvs for your post . It is important , because it deals with religion , from a historic point of view . Did the prophets even exist as people , or as tribes of people , as I have heard said before about Moses and Abraham . Since lifespans of these are some 1000 years ! The interesting point for me about this video , is that the name of " Muhammad" , was a title given to the priest king or ruler at the time . It was in Aramaic ! Same as Messiah , an expected priestly king for the Jews . The relationship and connection between early religions is undeniable . They basically share a lot of the same ideas . Also that koranic fragments may have existed well before the time of prophet Muhammad .

Irrespective of who the real ruler of Arabs was at that time , there is no doubt that he carried the title of Muhammad . And there is no doubt that Islam like other religions is a collection of ideas of older religions . And all religions are a product of man . And as men , we can study them , from historic point of view . And find wonder and fault with their philosophy !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad