Hello, i am a real Christian

[tackattack]

---

I wish that religion was a strictly uninfluential aspect of society and that we could all seperate our emotional, intellectual and spiritual sides more as individuals. That would help limit religions control over political and intellectual pursuits (excluding the theologicaly related sciences), though I don't see it happening anywhere in my lifetime.

This could only be if religion was non-existent or at least completely irrelevant to people (I think this is about the same thing, anyway). Or how could something you consider an integral part of your life not be influential? To me, "Religion" and "not influential" are highly contradicting each other.

---

Religion is an integral part of my life, as is my job, my political view, my choice of brands, my entertainment, my views on societ, my friends, family, etc. Everything within "our social world" is integral to who we are and at east influence our subconscious decision in other areas. What some believers do and very few if any atheists do is deliniate their spiritual sides, wants and needs seperate from their emotion, social and intellectual sides. One of the tenants of Christianity is to be in the world and not of the world. That's a blazhay way of saying don't get caught up in mundane things and focus on the spiritual. I don't really let my religious side have much choice over which road I drive to work, or which entree I select from a menu, those things are mundane. Religion should have little if any control over anyhting other than spirtual needs and wants. It should not be forced into schools, or politics or job screenings, etc. was my point.

---

Why do christians believe that christianity is older than it actually is? Christianity was so insignificant during the 1st century that the Roman's didn't even see it as a threat to their already existing theology. Christianity began as a highly varied practice amongst cavedwelling cults, and it wasn't until the council of Nicea that an actual "church" and unified doctrine existed. Constantine and the religious leaders from the larger christian sects worked out a series of compromises to unify the religion to unify the empire. Your church began as a political ploy to strengthen the Roman empire. It's doctrine was taken from a thousand different belief systems that existed at the time, it's holidays mirrored pagan holidays to ease the transition. The only reason that christianity is as widespread as it is today is because it had an empire behind it. The Romans purged Europe, either converting or annhilating every opposing culture and religion. It's insulting for christianity and morality to even be in the same sentence. Christianity burned the world in it's first millenia of existence, a lot, a LOT of people died at the hands of the religious ruling body of Rome.

Early christianity wasn't this diluted jesus loves you hippy nonsense we see these days. The church used it's massive influence within the government to destroy any remaining ideologies that could threaten it. A lot of cultures and religions simply ceased to exist in europe after it's inception, not because the church was spreading it's morality, but because the church justified apartheid and genocide as god's work. A few real history classes might be a good idea dude.

And ANC, religion is a philisophical idea, however it's believers don't see it as such. I would have no problems with it were it simply used as a philosophy, however instead I can't even watch a presidential election without it coming up.

---

Romans didn't see a lot coming Lots of people died at the hands of ruling bodies of the time, men seek wealth and power. That's not in the tenants of the nicene creed you brought up though. There have been tons of attrocties of lots of people over the centuries. Attributng them to all of religion as most atheists do would be like me saing all germans are genocidal maniacs becasue of hitler even today. Personal acccountability people. I agree however that more religious people should use it more as a philosophy and stop with the fanaticism, keep it out of the mundane.

---

1- No I don't think we need some "magic man" in the sky or God to tell us what's moral. I don't believe I ever said that.

Okay, you did say this:

I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine.

So what is the source of this "doctrine" if not a deity?

2-I don't believe I said "universal" doctrine at all either.

I meant "universal" within your particular religion, not "universal" in that it applies to everyone, everywhere.

I'd like it if there was a universal doctrine, but since religion is so subjective it's very hard to come up with the "axiom of morality" everyone is looking for.

And this reinforces my point. Devout believers within a particular religion will disagree on what is moral and what isn't. There is no universal morality for all things.

---

1- By man. God didn't say, build me a book to keep theese tenants. JEsus didn't say " Make thee a religious organization around my teaching and go purge society of anything different" Man took it upon itself to record it's thoughts , tenants and history to help future generation define who and what God is. Where that was done with reverence and humility it was inspired by God. Where it was done selfishly and for gain the translation was slanted and fundamentalists constantly use it evade responsibility for their own prejudices and hatred.

2- Good clarification, however while the rituals, practives and dogma are subjective (as would be expected from a man-made fallible creation) and has caused much fracturng within Christianity I'm pretty sure we all (catholic, protestant, non-denominational, lutheran, etc) rally around the nicene creed as a starting point. There may not be a universal/ regional morality, but if you can identify a constant/axiom with which to derive one, it would be easier. Believers use God as their moral absolute to keep their personal morals in check. Using a fluctuating societal standard as a reference for subjective morality is only slightly more flawed than aninvisible sky-daddy

---

1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?

It doesn't follow that all of those things are necessarily due to fanaticism. While religion can harbor fanaticism, its foul acts aren't perpetrated solely by a ragtag bunch of nutjobs. Religion allows these ideologies to grow, and employs doctrines that are absolutely immoral in a secular and civilized society. When a group promotes bigoted doctrines, such as any of the Abrahamic religions, it should be taken seriously, and not brushed off as a misinterpretation of the group's tenets.

I can go on in detail about how all of the religions you listed strove for political control and influence, just as well as any other religion to fulfill their own agendas. I'll try and dig up the thread for you, I have it saved somewhere.

2. I'm not knocking on science, I love innovation and scienific principles. Just as the bible thumpers could use a lot less holier-than-thou attitudes; A lot of atheists I've spoken with could use anti-supr-smarmy pills. The world doesn't need religion to behave, but I'm not just going to throw it away.

Why not?

If we threw away all religions based off of small groups or singular people misguiding others against the doctrine's of their religion, why not get rid of the entirety of the house and senate.

1. Yes, reform is needed in politics. We have too many crooked politicians.
2. The fanatics are not reacting in spite of their doctrine, but as a direct result of it. That's the problem. When a person blows himself up on a crowded street because his Holy Book commands him to destroy those who don't submit to the will of Allah, he's not acting on his own accord - he's performing a moral action in regards to his religion.

By percentage, I'd wager there was a lot more corruption in Govt. than in the entirety of religion.

Define corruption.

3. Do you mind citing some references for your statement "It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally" and "they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts." I'd like to do some of the reading on that.

Human Development IndexMore than half of the top 10 are highly secularized, Norway leads.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

GDP per capita: (More than half of the top 10 countries have growing and majority non-believer populations)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...per_capita

Giving to charities:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3526-pos...l#pid66931

---

1a-I'm not brushing off any of the deeds of generations past. I'm correcting your interpretation of Christianity. My denomination does not teach bigotry or intolerance. I am Christian so it factors hugely into my definition of Christianity. Try and see it from my perspective. Churches I've been to, even of different denominations, all abhor the Church that goes to schools and boycotts homosexuality. That's just one example. You say I'm brushing aside past occurences. I'm saying your attribting all of the publicized bad to the entirety of the whole. See my German comment above.

1b- I doubt you'll convince me with any references that the entirety is ever wholey or equally responsible for the actions of the part. I don't doubt someone somewhere in the religions have sought power, it's a natural human compulsion (and we're all human), but attribute it to personal accountability and stop blaming the whole for things obviously in contradiction with the teaching of that belief.

2-Firstly, Suicide is forbidden.

---

"O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).

---

and mass murder even for retalition is forbidden as well.

---

This practice was directly forbidden in the Qur'an (2:178-179). Following this statement of law, the Qur'an says, "After this, whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave chastisement" (2:178).

---

so an obvious misinerpretation happened somewhere. I'm pretty sure most of the mulims I know don't interpret the Qur'an the same was as the Jihadists. I agree that fanatacism and closed-minded interpretaion without a system of balance is definately a recipe for disaster every time. Do you condemn all Muslims for the acts of the fanatics?

3-corruption - motives that lead to the the act of illegal or unlawful practices I guess.

4-Thanks for the reading.. I'l close this out and talk about that later.. this post is long enough.