[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

avb3, I've noticed that you tend to drag up particular people and events as 'models' of Christianity in these discussions, and you seem to have decided they are exemplars of the faith*. You are so wrong, (but you are convinced you are right and Christians are all to be painted with the same brush). Sorry to break it to you, but people like Hitler (who was definitely not a practicing Catholic in any other sense than for reasons of political legitimacy - and there are still lots of people who play that card) is not an example of a true believer. Such people and 'dark' events they perpetrate - sometimes in the name of Christ, are, for sure, a dark stain on Christianity - in so far as they wear that label.

I was only making the point that if one suggests that if someone is of a religious bent, as a leader, that it does not make that leader better then one who is not.

In fact, I think it is totally irrelevant if a leader is religious; in fact, as in Iran, it is down right dangerous, as Christian leaders have been in the past. We have had some very good leaders in many nations who were religious, and some very good ones who were not.

Faith of any kind does not dictate a good leader, nor does it preclude bad ones.

No one would or can logically argue that they are appropriate examples of the Christianity Jesus / God calls people to follow.*

So, would you extend this comment towards the fellow who is the basis of your particular sect of Christianity, Calvin?

Impaling heads of those that oppose your religious view on a stake is not exactly very Christian, is it? You never did answer that. And Calvin IS the father of the Reformed Christian sect you pride yourself of believing in.

To further the discussion, since it is easily 'proven' that religious people have their faults, no matter what their religion is, and that presupposes that since their worldviews are religiously based those worldviews have their faults too, what about atheist / unbeliever leaders and people? Did non-religious leaders like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao-tze-tung, Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-un, and others like them do a better job out of their worldviews than those with religious worldviews? (Yes, I recognize that some of these folks spoke out of one side of their mouths suggesting they held to some sort of 'religious' tenets, but at the same time would say that by their actions they were not serious about following the truth of their 'religion'.)*

The people you list are as much scum as Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders who kill in the name of their religion. Period. Bad people are bad people, some are religious, and do it in the name of their religion (Calvin, perhaps, impaling heads of those opposing him), and some are not religious at all.

How about the atheists on here? Do you have 'faults'? Or are you perfect and are your worldviews perfect? If you think so please explain why.*

I would think your answer would have to be, "No." (example: have you ever told a lie, harboured a grudge, thought badly of someone?)

LOL... if I was perfect, then I could lay claim to being the second coming, couldn't I? Or the first for the Jews.

So what's the problem? Why do people have these faults? Why are there no perfect people, and thus no perfect worldviews (at least not in practice by human beings)?

We can call the problem 'evil'. So where does it come from? ----- Now there's a big worldview question! Why do people - of whatever worldview - religiously based or not - do 'evil'?*

And that leads to the next logical question: What's the solution?

Follow the Code of Hammurabi. It takes out the religious stuff, and deals with the human stuff. It's a bit heavy on stuff involving the death sentence, but that seems to be par for the course in that part of the world anyways... I mean, how often does the God inspired bible talk about stoning people to death. Oh yeah, just as the God inspired OT has laws about slaves, most of those seem to be stolen (borrowed) from the Code of Hammurabi... I think those parts we would want to revise also.

Seriously, as one judge once said, “I can't define pornography, but I know it if I see it”, as a people we know right from wrong. We (at least in the western world) over all are doing a pretty good job at defining a civil society. It would be nice if all people would buy into it, but that just won't happen.

Now, if we could do something about groups like the Westboro Baptists, scammers like Benny Hinn and end times prophet Harold Camping, all who profess to be Christians, wouldn't the world be a better place?

Just as we seen to ask Muslim leaders to expose and denounce their religious wackos, why do we not impose that same standard on Christian ones?