>>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 don't think it is Christianity alone that asserts that people are flawed, and should just try their best to live according to the teachings of that religion (following the divine leader who came before and founded the religion, be he Buddha, Mohammed, whoever). I'm no religious scholar, but the only element of Christianity that really seems unique is the "God sacrificed his only son for our sins", and that doesn't really draw me in like it draws other people.
>
>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.
Your determination is admirable, but I'm not gonna be "delving more into Christian teaching".
>
>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.
What about the Calvinists, Christians who believed in the elect and predestination?
>
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.
I'm just saying, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Jains, they never had anything close to the Crusades, or Manifest Destiny, or the Spanish Inquisition. If anything, they've come up on the short end of the stick for actually following the non-violent dictates of their religions.
>
>>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.
Do you go to church? Do you trust your priest/pastor/rector/reverend/whatever?
>
>
>>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?
Some of them yes. The "don't make graven images" doesn't make so much sense. There are plenty of societies that are opposed to killing and stealing who didn't need Christianity to come to that conclusion.
>
>So the question become WHY? Why do we ALL understand,
>despite how we act, that THESE are universal laws?
But they're not universal laws. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. That's certainly not a universal law.
>
>>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?
Hypothetically say he isn't. Hypothetically say that people who have thought they knew God, and were doing things for God, have done at least as many horrible things as those who believed in multiple gods, or no god at all.
>
>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.
So in a godlier world, there would be no graven images? And we would be punished for the sin of Onan "spilling our seed on the ground"?
>
>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.
Even in countries where they believe in multiple gods, or a different sort of god, or a god of a different name, or no god at all.
>
>You yourself even wholeheartedly agree with them, yet are
>not religious.
Because they're not just religious values. There have been codes of law (which I contend are reflections of society's moral code), that predate Christianity. Ever hear of Draco?
>
>I would say it's very, very odd that we all have an idea of
>how TO and how NOT TO treat eachother.
Those values were there before (Christian)God was in the discussion. Not stealing and not murdering, and honoring your mother and father, are values of ancient Greece.