I'll just say two things to this:
1) Proverbs 15:22 and 2) Psalm 133:1

If you wanna get from the source, you've been doing it wrong.

I have to admit that my knowledge of the Bible is all that great; I only know bits and pieces, so I can't make a full argument about everything in it. All I can do is look upon certain passages and say "heeey, wait a minute here! THAT doesn't seem very nice!" I don't quite know what Jesus said, so I don't fully understand what parts of the OT is rendered obsolete.

They keep finding parts of the Bible (don't know what they're called, evangelists? Those letters that constitute the NT from Peter and the likes) that DIDN'T make the cut into the book. And it wasn't until sometime around the 300's that Jesus officially was considered the son of god by the church. So there's been quite some cherry picking even before the Early Modern time period, in which the English Bible was written.

Did I get upset? No. Did I storm off? No.

I've seen how you reply to people in discussions and I don't want to deal with that.

If you cannot handle criticism for being wrong, you will struggle with life each and every day. Being wrong is part of the learning process my friend. I'm a snarky individual, so I understand if you don't wish to converse. Some can't handle it.

It's not a question of resilience, it's a question of convenience.

I think it's because it's so close to home, and we're in the thick of it. As simple as that. Personally, since I've grown up in what at least used to be a protestant country I know a lot more about christianity than I do islam, which makes it much easier to debate. But I generally think that every criticism an atheist has against christendom, s/he has against islam as well.

I can't say my knowledge of the Bible is all that great either. I've only just recently started doing some research for myself.

There was apparently quite a debate over which writings would make it into the Bible back in the day. I have to agree that quite a bit of clipping was done when the Book was first compiled, which is why I find it extremely hard to accept that the Protestant bible, or even the 73 book Catholic Bible, can possibly contain everything that needs to be known. I don't have access to the earliest manuscripts, though, nor to I have access to someone who could make sense of them for me if I did. -_-

On the topic of Jesus being the son of God, interestingly enough, most modern translations of the Bible that I've read don't have him outright making the claim. He infered it, sure, but never outright said it. Now that I think about it, I don't recall any OT prophets saying that the Christ would be the son of God either. Also, the very meaning of the term is up for debate. 

@sales2099

Christianity is merely the predominant monotheistic religion in the West. Which is where the decline in established organized religion is most pronounced. Nations that are in the third world, part of emerging economies, or are under theocratic rule are obviously farther behind their Western counterparts. The predominant point of view being that higher standards of eduction, stronger economics, secular institutions, and the technological advances brought about Science. Are strengthening pluralism. Which actually undermines strict interpretation.

Basically the smarter people are, the more options they have, and the stronger the freedoms they are in actual possession of. The more likely they are to abandon organized religion in favor of generalist sentiments, or just plain outright disbelief. People seem to be increasingly less responsive to the idea of a interventionist god. Since it is increasingly becoming the case that science, technology, or secular thought can more adequately address their problems. When you get sick your first act isn't to pray for a healing. You take some medicine, see a doctor, or have a operation to repair the damage. In a very real sense people are placing more of their faith in Science which has a fairly solid track record. Then in a god which is fundamentally binary.

On topic I think people are fundamentally practical. Late in the nineteenth century, and early in the twentieth century. Organized Christianity took stands against anesthetics, and the evils of alcohol. In both cases those views have been pretty soundly crushed outside of a small number of denominations. You don't see a lot of preachers railing against people getting knocked out before they undergo surgery, and you don't see a lot of them calling people who drink heathens. Practicality eventually won out, because in a either or scenario religion loses out when it comes to people doing things people feel they have a right to do.

Personally I think Christianity is both being eroded and diluted, and it will not so much end as it will just crumble apart. I think the religion has fundamentally placed itself at odds with progress, and in a face off it will always lose, because progress brings tangible results. Every time the religion loses a battle in the court of public opinion it not only loses credibility, but it also damages its reputation. It is really a process of attrition rather then a process of reinvention. Pieces of the religion are getting ripped out, and that is allowing for doubt to slip right in.

I think in the end people who identify themselves as Christians probably will not have much conviction left, and will view the self identification in the same way we view birth signs. It will have just been something handed down to them. I also don't think the trend can reverse, because it isn't a vacuum type of situation. The voids being left in Christianity are being replaced by things like Science, Philosophy, and Newer types of thinking. So eventually in the end there will not be anything for people to go back to.

Apparently not, as I've been guided to great things, all without the influence or corruption of man, and have been delivered unto those who needed a helping hand or encouragement in dark times. God is my counsel, dare you say that He has guided me wrong?

This is why I like discussing faith matters with atheists better than those who feel they have authority to preach. At least Atheists ask some interesting questions. Prechers and their ilk only know how to condemn, and as per Christ, those who condemn are themselves condemned.

Lol, you just condemned me you hypocrite. (Yes, I can read between the lines)

Anyways, the point of what I was saying was that you said you go to the source, but after showing you those two verses you clearly don't.

I don't need to be christian to tell you the cold hard truth. Sorry you can't take it.

Edit: You want the actual truth about this and being preachy (Lol)? I don't even practice those two verses. But I don't pretend to have my religion in place, I know I have things to fix. You can say you're working on things, but don't pretend that being a lone wolf is the biblical path to take, because it's not.