If you're reffering to how you "have" to be Christian to be the President, then I would point out that, in fact, you essentially need: - to support Israel - to have the relevant lobbies support you. At this juncture, it's more likely for an atheist to be President than a non-Israel supporting candidate. Plus, the U.S. is not the world.
Ever heard of Constantine? Ever heard of Pelagius? The Council of Trent? The Reformation? Pope Alexander VI? Indulgences? Henry VIII? and on and on and on.... Christianity (to give an example relevant to this thread) is ripe with political intrigue. All religions are. They are human constructs. That you would pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
To be honest there's no real support for a "catholic church" organizational structure in the canonical scriptures (inb4 council of nicea). that whole thing was set up because the italians got butthurt at the orthodox christians. in short, don't use catholicism to denounce all of christianity when all it is is a breakaway sect that ended up having a lot of political and economic power, allowing it to spread more than any other brand of christianity.
No no no no no no. Religion is an enormous thing. EVERYTHING you mentioned is Christian and I'm sure whoever knows about those things will have THEIR argument. But the statement here is that the motive for creating religion was politics. What you are describing is, probably, a bunch of idiots who decided to tweak the religion in their favor.
In all honesty I'm offended but in truth can understand why others may think that. The truth is, is that its just a human thing. Christianity isn't bad but people within it can give it a bad name. Just b/c you associate yourself with an organization doesnt remove the human deficiencies you have but with the right heart, mind, focus, and motive it will change you to a better person. GOD doesnt care about religion just beliefs works and the true nature of your heart. Man made Christianity and gave it stipulations. I myself call myself a Christian but I rather push my beliefs to affect people than my religion.
Did I misunderstand your post? If not, then honestly my statements are based on what I've read in this forum recently about the elections. I am, admittedly, no expert on U.S. internal politics.
Wait, what? I am not denouncing a particular group. These are just examples off the top of my head, without even trying - simply to show ehsan he's so spectacularly wrong I did not really even try to come up with a huge or perfectly damning list - nor did I have to. That the list focuses on catholicism is a fallout of the catholic church's as you put it, "political and economic power". The thread focus was christianity after all. It's all moot. Some people hold on to it, some don't. I don't need a man to tell me about or how to find solace in the unknown god. But YMMV. I disagree with the ideology as collectivist - but that's not to say everyone associated is a bad person.
Great response. I feel the same as yourself. Are you familiar with David W. Bercot? He has some great books I've read about the 'Real Christians.' The Christians that existed before the council of Nicea offer us the best glimpse at what being a true Christian is all about before politics came to shape what people know today as 'Chrisitanity' and the Roman Catholic church (But you already know that). I've read "The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down" and "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up." Both great reads for anybody who wants to seperate true Chrisitanity from the political and pagan roots that Constantine introduced.
I don't disagree. The fact that she yearned for God's presence and ached at the absence made her seem more... not sure of a term to be honest. Human? Real? Sympathetic Heroine? But, I respect her to a greater degree knowing she didn't just go around with 100% bliss of God, and that she actually had doubts. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" I was bringing up the article, because to me it makes her seem more like Jesus than the 'shining beacon of goodness' that the media portrayed her as.
Ugh, all you have to do Ehsan is look it up, it is not opinion at all, but a matter of fact. Christianity was shaped by Constantine and the Nicene council where they left out many many unpopular books in the bible. Link to Wiki Nicene article or that many of the miracles or myths etc were actually copied from older stories and mythos... Link to Biblical inspiration The Muslim Faith was also shaped by Politics of the times as Mohommed was a warlord who was spreading his faith through peaceful means as well as through conquest. Warning - link is seriously skewed against Mohammed Politics of the times had an effect on both of these religions, I am sure the rest will fall in line as well. DD
No. not really. The political ramifications and motivations of these religious instances are documented fact. I could pull out similar circumstances for any major religion. NO NO NO. The point was that it had BEEN SHAPED by political motivation. I'd venture it could be argued that there was political motivation even in the inception of various religions (religions as seperate from faith), probably an altruistic rationale a la the August Comte definition of the word. Such a philosophical denotion is ripe with potential abuse, as has been documented thouroughly by such authors and philosphers as Freidrich Hayek and Ayn Rand. But that is a definite opinion, and subjective based on one's thoughts regarding the predisposition of humans as it relates to sociological power structures. My cynicism betrays me here, but certainly counter-examples exist.
Wrong on all counts DaDa. I can't comment on the first or second except to say that you are defining Christianity as what you know now rather than what Jesus wanted it to be. Therefore, those people can do what they want, but you can find out what it's SUPPOSED to be, weed out the bull****, and follow Christianity in its purest form. On the 3rd and 4th points, I'm sure bibleprobe dot com were seriously interested in the facts (lol) but you (along with them) are wrong yet again. The prophet was an illiterate, shy, quiet member of the DOMINANT political party at the time. If he wanted power, all he had to do was shut up. But he did not and he was disowned. Oh and FYI, the Qura'an is almost 100% accurate. A group of people wrote the Qura'an as the prophet recited it. When finalized, 3 copies were made. One of those copies is available today, you can fly to Egypt and have a look at it. No shaping. LOL at you thinking the prophet even knew what politics meant. You have to seperate the religion from what you see in the media. Islam and Christianity are not what you have been led to believe. I honestly can't speak for Christianity, but Islam (for one) cannot be tweaked as it is available in the way that the illiterate Prophet (PBUH) recited. Then there is the Sunna (basically, guidance by the prophet) which you are free to follow as long as you are satisfied by its authenticity. There is no particular "interpretation" that you are bound by. You've got nothing.
If you are saying that there are SOME parts of SOME religions that were TWEAKED at some point in history after the relevant "authority" brought it to earth, then I agree with you. But I would respond to that by saying you'd have to be pretty stupid to know which parts were tampered with and rather than acknowledge that, discredit the entire religion.
Ehsan, Although I am not sure what the point is in arguing with someone intensely religious and convinced of almost pure accuracy of any written document, but allow me to try and bring up an important matter of definitions: Please try to understand the distinction being made between religion and faith, religious doctrine and original teachings, and between worldly religious power structure and what you personally believe as relevant. Thanks.
