AJ gave you a -1 for the last sentence. Read the books if you want to, no dreams of grandeur here. Feel free to disagree, but I could due without the insult line.

It's okay. If you don't have the eyes to see it and ears to hear it, you won't do either. That's why the parables.

To be christian means to be something specific that applies to anyone who is christian. The broad brush does apply as long as it is directed to the the core of christainity in the case. Christianity is based on irrationalism and always causes evil to the extent the tenants of christianity are adhered to.

I think you are mis-using the concept of "give up" trades are always implicit in choices

yes- you are not following the St James version of the Bible :)

Christianity saved Europe from islamic invasion (Charles Martel). Also, beguilingly, the catholic church helped forge a society out of dark age barbarism following the fall of Rome. It also delivered education to the masses. Lastly, King John was compelled to sign the magna carta, a foundational document of the US Constitution, by the Templar Nights - arguably Christian.

Lets try to avoid dreams of grandeur to build revisionist history.

we defend the nation like we defend our home. . you are welcome
if you are peaceful, if you contribute value for value, and
if you harmonize. . otherwise, no thanks. . this is not arbitrary,
it is necessary as it is national defense and health. . we thrive
as a direct result of these actions.

and I will not vote you down for disagreeing. -- john
.

In spite of christianity, not because of it. But for the enlightenment, christianity would still be burning witches and books.l

What does not ask you to give up something of yourself?

If I wish to be a computer programmer I must give up something of myself to achieve that goal.

If I wish to be a great debater I also must give up something of myself to achieve that.

If I wish to achieve the goal of becoming a god and creating my own worlds, I must give up something of myself to achieve that goal.

Anything you accomplish requires you to make choices. I see no difference between developing skill within the context of religion and developing skill in the context of science, philosophy or economic pressures. Any require you to make a choice. In some cases its give up some TV time to get a skill. Other cases it pay for classes for an education, in others its give up some deserts I like to eat to loose weight....

Religion is no different. There is something people are attempting to achieve and they are willing to do what is needed to achieve it.

It is not altruistic to decide you wish to achieve something then work towards that achievement and pay the cost needed to achieve it.

Edit: BTW the same can be said of Objectivism. If you wish to reap the benefits it offers you must alter some of your viewpoints to do so, and that alters self, but again to accomplish a goal.

The word "Christian" means: "Annointed-one".
"True Christians" (and they are few and far between) are individualists and believe that the annointing (meaning: the power of God on your life) is sufficient and you don't need the group nor man-made rules.

To live in this world, Islam advocates the group and rule of the consensus. The "rules" are more important than people. The "power" comes in the form of how well you can fit in or overpower others.

Most organized religions follow the same pattern: Rules and group think come first. It takes a strong person to break from that and find your own path
...and as Jesus said: "You will find the Kingdom, but it will be with many persecutions."

The constant complaint of christians Sorry I looked and I do not see they were taken out of context.

Dang, you are pulling me in. OK one more comment I need to get back to work.

I am Christian, but do not believe I have any requirement to give a person a dime. It may even be wrong to give a person that dime, and if I had more time I could give you some references to that from my particular version of Christianity.

In my belief structure it is first free agency which is an Mormon term for individual choice as to what a person does. If you want to get X from the gospel you may have to do Y to accomplish that goal, but its your choice.

Altruism != Christianity.

A quick specific example. If I give my son $1,000.00 do I help him or hurt him? Any situation requires an evaluation as to what is best for the individual, and if the funds are voluntarily there to help the person. The same decision is made by LDS (Mormon) bishop each time they help someone. It is not required, and people are turned away. It is advised that the bishop require some action from the person to get help, often some service to the church or others in the word is required. As a general rule its frowned upon to give people help for free. That is viewed to as damaging to the receiver and the giver. Does it happen, I am sure it does and actually removed myself as a financial clerk because I saw things that were in my view against the teaching of my church going on.

If I choose to give my church money, its because I feel its in my best interest. The same is true of the beggar. I do not have a duty or owe either anything.

I exist for my sake. I will add to this that I do think it often is in my best interest to help someone around me, but only if they are helping themselves as well. A person who is doing nothing for themselves has not earned my help and charity is only charity when given freely of the givers choice. It is otherwise a form of theft.

When you say "the church" which one are you referring too?

Christians.

Not only is this true, but if Christianity had not existed many, if not all of ideals that lead to the creation of the US would not have existed.

The basic premises from which the US sprang, Gods Law/Natural law is all about the laws which god put in place that are irrevocable. The very idea is Christian, and everything that sprang from it came from christian views.

The books "The books 7 miracles that saved the world" and "7 tipping points that saved the world" have several examples of Christianity preserving freedom in them. I had never thought of Christianity in this light till reading them.

XenokRoy-I too am LDS.

Yes!

+1

Here Here!

I'd paint with a broader brush, to include all forms of organized religion or ideology as impediments to peaceful human relations. Any organization that purports to have the secret formula to a Utopian existence, whether it's a religious group or a secular cult (Communism, e.g.) seduces the gullible into accepting criminal fraud that cripples human social interaction.

I have long said religion is a tool that men use, no belief in god needed. The Chinese government have created a religion in the belief in China. Nationalism has become the official religion of China just for a god and religion seperation.

As far as the Trinity, I am a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day saints. We do not believe that they are all one, but rather that the three are separate people that are one in the goals they work to achieve. They are not a single person. God is a perfected man, and after his resurrection so is Christ. The Holy Ghost is a being of spirit that will also have to go through this mortal life to achieve his own perfected state. We are all going through the same process as well. (I only bring this up since you mentioned it in your post, it may provide an alternate view of it that makes more sense, or not.)

"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” " Philosophy Who Needs It?-Rand

Both of the referenced used above deal with the next life, and the judgement Christ will have on the children of god, they each have nothing to do with this world. So misinterpreted and taken out of context is exactly right.

Christs life was not about war, see anywhere that he forces anyone to accept the gospel? Nope. See anywhere where agency is removed from a person sealing to follow him? Nope. It was left to there free agency. I would go into it more but I do not have time.

Mohammad on the other hand did lead a war in his life and ministry.

If you attempt to live as they lived the two have nothing in common.

just add stephen :) he has many videos on youtube

lol.

hmm. I disagree. religions ask you to give up something of yourself. show me one that does not. I respect religionist individuals, but the altruistic component is hard to bear.