: As a rule I try not to debate with Christians. By their very definition they do not accept reason and I cannot comprehend the notion of faith. Nobody can ever win. But it looks like I've been sucked in again. Ah well.
: Just a note : There have been few groups throughout history more enthusiastic than Christians when it came to wiping out Jews. I wouldn't enter that kind of territory if you want to defend Christianity.
$$$$$$$$$Point one; OK by me if you want to reject an ultimate authority. But the alternative is subjectivism. If you can live with that, so can I.
By the way, there's a difference between the message of a religion and the way that message is abused.
Point Two, of course God is blood-thirsty, but only if you choose to disobey certain of his Commandments. Wouldn't be much of a God if there were no rules to observe, would he? All that one has to do to avoid that wrath is to do the right thing.
What the hey. Yeah, I'll defend the Vatican's record in aiding the 800,000 Jews to escape Nazism in WWII. Contrary to popular knowledge, this is well documented.
Shindler saved a paltry what? 1,100? He gets a movie. While what he did was good, it does in no way compare with the efforts of the Vatican.
On a related tangent.
I'm always puzzled when one rejects the notions of religion and faith in favor of humanism.
The charge is made that X number of people have been killed because of religion throuhgout history as if governments throughout history have never engaged in any harmful acts.
If your going to reject the influence of religion based on its failures (in your eyes) and its shortcomings, isn't it only reasonable that you also reject the idea of all governments on the same basis? Has there ever been a perfect government?