>I know it's a religion of charity and turning the other
>cheek. But the fact that its own religious leaders, through
>the years, have been responsible for so many atrocities,
>makes me think that Christianity itself isn't the path to a
>moral life any more than any other religion.

But it's Christianity alone that asserts that men ARE capable of these things, and WILL do them because of their propensity to sin. And it is also Christianity alone which allows for a way to reconcile the atrocities that a fallable mankind is capable of, with the perfection of a loving God.

I'm not downplaying your reaction. It's completely understood. What I'd like to communicate though is that as you delve more into Christian teaching, and begin to understand (BEGIN!!.. I said... lol) the nature of God, this problem takes care of itself. It sheds new light on the moral dilemma that you're facing when looking at what has been done by man in the name of God.

God created the earth. He created man in HIS image. However, he wanted to have a loving relationship with man, so he gave him the CHOICE (free will) to look to God or not. No love is possible without free will.

What we have seen over the course of human history... what is playing out right before our eyes is the result of the fact that man HAS THAT CHOICE.

On his best day, man is still a sinner. I personally have not committed genocide... but I am still a sinner. A perfect God cannot look upon or be associated with a concept that is a result of choosing not to follow his instructions, Sin. Therefore, a price had to be paid so that we could be reconciled with God. The price? The death of Jesus on the cross. The miracle? Jesus arose from death. Why? Because he was God all along, coming to pay the necassary price on the heads of his children whom he had created in his image, with free will, but whom had strayed from him, taking advantage of that free will. This is why Christians refer to it as "Good News" man...lol... it's GOOD NEWS... the price has been paid. My God knows how wrongly I'm capable of acting.... he only asks that I acknowledge and follow his word as best I can. He asks that I believe in the price he paid for me.



>In fact, there
>are some that haven't been responsible for atrocities like
>that (Judaism and Buddhism, for example, not to mention
>Jainism). If I were religiously inclined, I think I'd go to
>those first.

As many have. But the nature of TRUTH is that there can only be ONE.
It is up to each of us do find out what is truth, and what is fable.

>But the point I was making is that people who
>claim to have a hotline to God often do some truly awful
>things "in His name". And if a religion's leaders have shown
>themselves to be untrustworthy through the years, why should
>I trust that religion now?

I would say "don't" put your faith in man. Man sins. Man is fallable.
I would say "don't" trust a religion which requires you to go to another man as a "representative" of God.
I would say trust your instinct that you are an amazing, unique, powerful complex creature created in the image of something infinitely amazing, unique, powerful and complex... and you have the RIGHT and NEED to communicate with that creator.


>I think religion still provides
>some good general morals (the golden rule, don't steal and
>don't kill and don't cheat on your wife),

But you are not religious. And yet these morals still make perfect sense to you... no?

So the question become WHY? Why do we ALL understand, despite how we act, that THESE are universal laws?

>but in terms of
>modern-day moral dilemmas like homosexuality and abortion, I
>feel that religion is behind the times, being dragged
>forward into progress by others.

Here's a thought.

Hypothetically say God WERE the truth. Hypothetically say he IS the answer.
Well then you could certainly agree that the world we see around us is much the result of STRAYING from that truth... no? A good portion of us have basically left the idea of God long behind... no?

So OF COURSE there would be religious ideas and ideals that would seem anachronistic... behind the times... obselete. Of course... because now... the "times"... have moved on and away from God.

I think that that is a true but very simple hypothetical... it does serve a purpose, and I hope you see my point. But as far as the two specifice issues that you mentioned... can you now see why it would be necessary to delve much more into the idea/concept of God and Christianity before you could actually assert any sort of true opinion on these issues? What I'm saying is, if you take away the backdrop of Christianity, and what it REALLY means, any attempt to make sense of these issue would make little sense.

>This is one of the things
>that convinces me it's not God who gives us morals

Yet those pesky, basic moral values just seem to keep popping up everywhere we look across time and geography.

You yourself even wholeheartedly agree with them, yet are not religious.

I would say it's very, very odd that we all have an idea of how TO and how NOT TO treat eachother.


looking forward to more discussions with you man...


peace.