Hello, i am a real Christian

[tavarish]

1a- The only universally accepted doctrine of the different sects of Christianity is the Nicene Creed and I see nothing intolerant about

---

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father (the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; by whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---

First, the Nicene Creed isn't accepted universally. Some denominations of evangelicals adopt a sola scriptura view, not to mention Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, who also believe in the Jesus story, but dismiss the Nicene Creed. Most Christians will say that they're not "one of us" however.

Second, the Nicene Creed is based on the scriptures - ("according to the Scriptures"), and I've outlined the issues with Christian doctrine.

Third, The Nicene Creed outlines exactly what I said. Jesus came to die FOR us and then he will judge us ultimately in order to test whether we can worship him for all of eternity. This isn't moral. This isn't tolerant. this is exactly the kind of sanctimonious garbage that the religion preaches on a daily basis, and people don't take issue with it because they believe the primary premise that we need to be saved of our unclean ways.

There's no condemnation or refusal or punishments other than the possible judgement day reference, which is kind of ambiguous. It seems like a simple statement of belief, not instructions on genocide for those who don't believe the same.

I just outlined the intolerance in the Nicene Creed, not to mention the fact that it defaults on the scriptures.

I agree that using the bible as your sole resource for mankind's most pertinent questions is disingenuous at worst, closed-minded and obstinant at best.cherry picking is also not a rrelious monopoly, it's human nature. I try and read within as much context as I can find and intake as many different viewpoints as possible before deciding anything, I'd like to hop that most those in my denomination do as well.

This is called cherry picking and rationalizing. You're taking the things in the Bible that work for you and applying them to your life. My point is if you're doing that by your own moral standards, you don't need the religion as a moral compass in the first place.

1b-Are you saying since I'm a christian that I'm partially to blame for the withhunts, and holy wars? That seems counter-intuitive to me.

No. However the religious individuals who don't do their part to publicly denounce those who do ill in the name of their doctrine (ex: passive moderate Muslims) are just helping to perpetuate the violence.

I can see where "historically" it could seem like a means of control and Catholicism might still reflect that today. To my knowledge there isn't that control in my denomination or church.

There doesn't need to be. Christianity is the majority religion in the country and most of Western society. It doesn't need to get out of its own way to have influence - it already has it.

I can, and have, walked away without any calls asking why I'm not at church or how's my walk speeched from the congregation.

Were you expecting them to? I don't understand how this is at all relevant.

There was of course a little familial inquisition, but it was brief and unobtrusive.

I also don't know what a brief and unobtrusive familial inquisition is.

I agree a crime is a crime regardless of your reasons (extreme or not). But primary repsonsibility vs associative responsibility, the latter has to have some limits. Otherwise you'd share some of the responsibility for ted bundy and hitler??

You don't share responsibility, but you are accountable for the groups you buy into. If I was a Nazi, I would be charged with defending the doctrines of the party, based on previous transgressions. It doesn't mean I did anything, but it does hold me accountable for accepting some immoral ideologies.

2-Martyrdom (as explained by my muslim friends) still must be done justly and proportionalte to the crime, not killing 100 people in a suicide run because your brother was shot by 1 infidel soldier.

So you're saying that the issue is proportion? WTF?

How is killing of innocents AT ALL just?

We're not talking about a court of law, this is unadulterated vigilantism.

If your people are persecuted and the state of Islam is at war with the infidels then they would be declared at war and have the option to kill maime or exile the infidels.

What exactly do you think a jihad is? It's a proclamation of war. These people are literally at war with much of Western society.

I don't claim to have an excellent grasp of Muslim politics or beliefs.. I can't honestly say thought that reading those versus in the Qur'an (to include yours) that muslims condone mass murder or excessive martyrdom, which is backed up by the understanding of my muslim friends (from Sudan) who have read this post. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point I guess. If you fault the entire relgion for what a small number are doing, isn't that biasing you towards others of that religion, or are you saying you just want that religion abolished?

I'm faulting the religion on its doctrine. You can look at a call to racism and bigotry and realize it's detrimental to society without it ever having to be realized, even if others choose to interpret it differently or cherry pick the parts they don't like.

3-I believe in seperation of church and state therefore in regards to the legal sense of corruption I stand on the side of secular laws, not God's laws. If I break man's laws by following God's will I would expect to be punished by man's standards.

So how would you go about demonstrating that religious people are necessarily less corrupt than those in politics by percentage?