Who's God defines sin. The only one that is real. All religions have a moral code it seems. Some with more rules, some with less. Even without rules it seems there's still a moral code. All nations have their own moral codes as well. More into the nature of where to draw the line and how to punish. Yet many rules are still are still the same. Don't murder and don't steal (where governments draw the line) don't cheat and commit adultery, and also hold true to your responsibilities and treat your family well. (Societal moral codes, but no consequence outside of direct results that the actions cause). It is my opinion that God has placed all of this in place, and that in His sovereignty He has allowed a strange paradox. That corrupt leaders and power hungry ambitions are in control of our nations, but somehow justice which is held by their station to enforce isn't removed completely by their breaking the rules and laws as often as they do. God sets the rules though. If I am wrong about Christianity so be it. But I know I'm not wrong about God. He makes the rules and His standards are what counts.

As for sin. If that word didn't hold religious connotations, would you have an issue with it? We all do bits of right and bits of wrong. Some more then others on both. It's not about it being necessary for being moral. It's that it's just the reality of the world we live in. Everyone sins. No one is perfect. Being moral in spite of our faults usually deals with turning from our sins, and to forgive those who sin against you. Both of these are heavy elements I being moral. Justice is there too, and that brings out the element of protecting each other from harming each other. Drawing the line, and a general of you get what sow that is woven into the world we live in.

I wrote: [It has a history of intolerance and violence.]

NNS wrote: "So does every nation that I know if. Which just contributes to my finding that power shows our own corruption. Societies having common ideas among it's people all seem to find ways to be intolerant and violent to the minority and less powerful. This isn't power of a leader, but observation of groups being less restrained because of their greater number. It's not a condition of religion. It's a condition of mankind."

Dear NNS,

You casually dismiss the evil of Christianity. The evil way that Christians act is just a condition of mankind. If Christianity doesn't make people better it is not needed. We can retain Christian legends and treat them as we do the Roman, Norse, Greek and Indian legends as stories mankind once believed. I enjoy reading about the legends of bygone ages. I can get the same sort of enjoyment from reading the Bible, but Jesus and God are no more entities to be worshipped than Krishna, Zeus or Apollo.

To AJ Philips.

[Given the levels of anti-science sentiment and sycophantic behaviour among so many Christians, I think we can safely say that it rots the mind. What's more is that it appears the more metaphorically one interprets Scripture, the less they show signs of the rot.]

Alzheimer's and dementia, are sad conditions that rot the mind. Lack of sleep, lack of nutrition, or subtances like alcohol and and speed harm the brain too. But I doubt you're unaccustomed to meeting smart and intelligent Christians that show no signs of mental handicap. What you call rotting of the mind is an exeggeration, and becoming a more and more commonly believed lie.

I really do think David's idea of a study of what religions positively affect people more, or lack of religion. I think the many positive elements of each religion will come out from such a study. Elements like a community that helps you out (different religions have different levels of having eachother's back and helping people out of harm); at least one religion has exersize as part of it's scope (yoga), as well as both the interplay of beliefs acting on how a person acts and reacts to the situtions of life or under the pressures of bad health or loss. You might be suprised to find out how benifitual each religion is, and more specifically how they are benifitual.

As for tv, movies, and video games. These things might help imagination like a book would, but they are much more addictive and more often isolate our social interactions with eachother. That alone without going into what is actually what people are exposed to, is enough to suggest mild mind rot. If anything outside of tragic disease or substance abuse really can qualify as mind rot, then social isolation would be in the running for causing it. Christianity, not even in the running for causing unhealthy mental health.

To David f.

I'm not trying to dismiss or sidestep evil that is done by Christians or in the name of Christianity. If you notice in my discriptions of the face of evil, I included catholic priests who raped and were protected by the church. My point is that the evil is not Christianity. The evil is the world as a whole. There is real unquestionable evil in the world. Stuff that makes you ashamed to be human. And those who seek to be in power will only eventually be in a place to act on their evil intents. The Catholic Church as not immune to this. If we were able to do this on our own then Israel would not have fallen away and been punished by God. The world would resist sin, and get better. Instead Jesus came because as a world, we are incapable of saving ourselves.

When the church doesn't follow Jesus's teachings, then Jesus's teachings aren't to blame for the abuses it does. If on the other hand the church is following Jesus's teachings and committing abuse,mthen the credit can be applied.

It's a notable difference between Islam and Christianity. Some are faithfully obeying some of Mohamad's teachings and showing abuse. I have yet to see people follow Jesus's teachings and commit abuse. At worst, people following Jesus might become more of a pacifast and potentially ignoring the harm done to others, then to become an active rebellion against a government, or to be an active abuse against anyone else.

The worst I know of by following Jesus is to go to extremes of do no harm.

Dear NNS,

I don't accept your point. By their fruits shall ye know them. Christianity is defined by what Christians do. From my knowledge of history both Christians and Muslims have done good and bad things. However, the record of Christianity is worse. They are both superstitions, and I hope that humanity will be liberated from superstition.

Of course, as I previously pointed out, Jesus according to the New Testament said some bad things. It gets up my nose that you consider your superstition true and the Muslim superstition false. Probably you have your particular superstition because it was the superstition that your parents had. If your parents had been Muslim you would probably think that superstition true and the Christian superstition false because that's what you would have been taught. I doubt that you would have questioned. We need neither superstition. there is no true god because all gods are merely human fantasies.

//Who's God defines sin. The only one that is real.//

So not yours then.

//God sets the rules though.//

Yeah, but not yours.

//As for tv, movies, and video games. These things might help imagination like a book would, but they are much more addictive//

What? No they're not. I mean, I'm pretty sure books and TV aren't addictive at all in the classic sense of a chemical addiction. But if we're talking about them being addictive in the general sense of being something pleasurable that people wish to continue doing... books are way more addictive. There's a reason my bookshelves are overflowing and my telly is frequently switched off.

//and more often isolate our social interactions with eachother.//

Not a chance. You can't read a book and carry out a conversation at the same time, whereas you can sit in a group and talk in front of the TV or play multiplayer video games. People don't go out with friends to the library, they go to the cinema. Books are far more socially isolating.