Hello, i am a real Christian

[tackattack]

---

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

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.

---

Ok first, Mormons (LDS) follow the book of Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses use watchtower and other suppliments. I wouldn't classify them any different than muslims or jews in their recognition of Jesus, therefore not part of the Christ centered movement. I define Christians as those who follow the tenents of the universal creed, or at the very least follow the Bible and believe in Christ for salvation. I've never had a pentacostal, baptist, or other church try and convert me because they thought I wasn't a true Christian.. They obviously seperate themselves from Christianity, clearly in the case of Jehovah's witnesses.

Did I miss where you outlined problems with the Christian doctrine? I apologize if I did. Is it because it includes the Bible?

No your exact words were "Having the idea that someone will burn for eternity for believing something different than you" and "the audacity to say your book holds the answers to mankind's most pertinent questions " which is defferent than "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". It's still flawed in that Jesus is the one that allows us entry, leaving us the choice to enter or not and we worship God not Jesus. Also your original premise is flawed. It's that we are flawed and imperfect, not that saving from ourselves is in any way necessary.

---

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.

---

Why is defaulting or being built from scripture an invalidator?

---

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.

---

I thought it was caled research and introspection? I can see your point, but I think you're seeing it as a rationalization either because I'm not in touch with my true motives, or that religion isn't based on a deterministic explination?

---

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.

---

So a solution would be no one who chooses belief should be allowed in politics? When Christianity is made out to be a terrorist organization...we're all a product of our enviornment. I think the best step in the right direction would be less extremeism overall in society. Comparing modern Christianity to the level of the instigators of the dark ages.. seems a little unbalanced (not that yoou did this directly mind you just a point)

---

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.

---

if that's where the accountability stopped that would make sense, snf I could agree with that.

---

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.

---

I'm not muslim nor do I agree with suicide bombings. Killing of innocents isn't just.

---

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 see jihad as this. I think we need more tolerance and indifference in the global community.

---

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.

---

but racism is a personal choice, as is bigotry. I see that religion is too, but there aren't 4000 groups around the world that teach racism and bigotry as their main course. racism is treated (within the laws here) on an indvidual basis, not a group basis. I think I see your point though.

---

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?

---

well I guess we could poll some churches and extrapolate the percentage of people that are corrupt versus the total number polled. The same for politicians then compare the 2 by least common denominator?
I was using the knowledge of what I know about the members of the Church I go to and only 6- have criminal records (proving they have at some point been corrupt) that Iknow of I know of. Even if I said half the population of my church was t some point or is corrupt, I still think that's less than the house and senate combined. I don't know any lobbyists though to interview. It was just a perception I thought was pretty obvious. Nothing really relevant.