The "interesting points" made by Daniel Pipes are absolutely correct. Mr. Pipes is one of the most knowledgeable people on that subject, he writes a weekly column available through Jewish World Review on-line. What you may be forgetting is that the Muslim world is virtually totally dedicated to their religion. In some Muslim nations it is a crime not to be, with severe punishments. Imagine that the US would be run by Catholic and Protestant Christian parties. Five times a day we would all have to either go to church or pray somewhere. All decisions for everything and everyone would be made based on Biblical law without modern intrepretations.

Yep. Love God and love one another. Love your enemies and treat everyone with kindness. Serve one another with gladness and sincerity. Man, don't want any of that. What an absolute mess of our society these Christians would make! Give me our run-of-the-mill secular violence, crime, and drugs any day! Don't want Christiany to ruin my America, that's for sure.

logos, you are absolutely right about what a mess these christians would make even though I know that you meant it to be facetious.

Can you imagine what this country would be like with the likes of hypocrites like Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell running things? Here we are in the middle east saying a theocracy is all wrong but it seems that some of the very loudest critics of a middle eastern theocracy are all for it in this country.

The same thing can be said for democracy. Dubya is all for democracy. That is if they vote the way he thinks they should vote. Otherwise we won't recognize the democratically elected government. Now which way is it? Do we want democracy or not? Or not unlike a theocracy, do we just want a democracy (and a theocracy) when it is to our liking?

Don't disagree with everything mydtwc says, but have to point out that the point I was trying to make was missed completely. Sure, Robertson (not Robinson) or Falwell are a bit on the fringe, but you criticize these "messengers" in an attempt to put down the message. The message of Christianity is not Robertson or Falwell, but Jesus Christ. What is it about Jesus that frightens you so? What is so objectionable in his teachings? That is the issue. He is Christianity, not what some televangelist may say it is.

We'll never have a theocracy in the U.S. The Constitution prohibits that. So, don't worry. The point is that I still contend that a nation founded upon and adhering to the real principles of Christianity would be as close to utopia as one could achieve here on earth. Like I said, what's not to like about loving your neighbor and doing unto others as you wish they'd do to you? You can call it democracy, theocracy, Christocracy, or any ocracy you want. I would think it to be a great place to live.

Remember, Christianity teaches tolerance of other viewpoints. Some Christians may not always practice this teaching, but it's there. Again, don't judge the whole of Christianity by what you see on TV from a few guys. Do the smart thing and check it out for yourself.

People are quick to point out that you can't judge all of Islam based on what you see the terroists doing. Yet these same folks are very happy to discard or put down Christianity because of what some televangelist said. Forget the double standard that the liberal media projects regading Christianity. Read about Jesus Christ for yourself and draw your conclusions about Him directly. Using this scientific approach (i.e., examination of the primary source documents instead of relying upon hearsay) will demonstrate what a great foundation Christianity is for any society.

Christinsanity teaches anything one would want [Sydney HOOK].Richard Carrier in"SENSE and GOODNESS wwithout GOD demonstrates the non-evidentiary of Christianity.We had to put aside faith-based ideas to frame the Constitution.The first four commandments are against the First Amendment!Apologists use flawed arguments.

I'd try to respond to this last post, if I could understand anything it said.

What is not to comprehend?any religion can adapt to any form of government.There s no evidenc to support apologetics.THE FRAMERS did not get ideas for the Constitution from the BIBLE. The First Amendment allows for freedom to worship many gods; The first four commandments demand allegiance to one god.Is this pellucid?

Your statement that there is "no evidence to support apologetics" is extemely naive and just plain wrong. I assume you mean "apologetics" in the sense of historical, archeological, and scientific evidence to support Christianity? There is a plethora of such evidence substantiating the people, places, and practices listed in the Bible. You'll have to be specific, and not make such sweeping (and inaccurate) generalizations.

The First Amendment states that the gov't will not establish a formal, state religion. Nothing in Christianity conflicts with that. What Christianity DOES teach is that there is one true God who loves us and died for us. Christianity DOES NOT teach that everyone must be a Christian. In fact, it teaches that few will actually agree to follow Jesus Christ. That is a sad, but expected fact. The amazing thing is that Christianity supports the right for you to reject it. God has given each of us free will; even the will to say that He does not exist. How much more tolerant could He be?

Contrary to what you say, religions do not adapt to government. Religions should not adapt at all. The point of religion is to seek adherents that will conform to the principles of that religion; not the reverse. So, again, I think your thoughts are a bit confused on the issue

One last point to consider: Christianity is NOT a religion at all (contrary to popular belief). Religion, by definition, is a set of rules and regulations set down for people to follow, in the hopes that if they follow these rules they will one day be rewarded (heaven, nirvana, reincarnation as sacred cow, etc.). Instead, Christianity states that no matter how "good" you are, you'll never earn your way into "heaven". You simply can't do it. None of us are worthy of it. We needed a way to absolve ourselves of the punishment that we all deserve (no one is perfect, right?). Christianity teaches that it was God himself who came to earth in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth who lived that perfect life, but was killed in your place. It was He who took the penality of your imperfections upon Himself, so you would not have to. Not very fair at all. That's what Christians refer to as "grace": us getting what we don't deserve because God Himself got what we deserve.

So you see, Christianity is not a "religion" at all. It is a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP between you and your God; the One True God that loves you so much He'd rather die than live in eternity without you! What an amazing thing to try and comprehend. Few do. This is what separates Christianity from man-made religion. There is absolutely nothing like it. Check it out for yourself....

I' m not going to get into waht is wrong with apologetic poin t by point, but suffice to state that when the "evidence"is pondered, one comes to the conclusion it does not stack up.Those who don' want to notice the contradictions and the non-historical basis , will for ever abandon logic and keep themselves free of historical scholarship.Read Robin Fox Lane's " THE UNAUTHORIZED VERSION" to see real scholarship rather than the sort of a quack in ' EVIDENCE that demands a Verdict."Word play about a relationship with a deity deos not gainsay one is talking religion.John Calvin used his religion for his dictatorship and in humane treatment of others.The brothers Berrigans use theirs for pacifism.Jim Wallis uses his for liberal policies Religion adapts.Islam can also adapt.hEAVEN can be no better than hereif free-will is to be.There shouldn't be arequirement for someone to die in order to save mankind;that is barbaric!The First Amendment iis bout more than noestablished church: we believe what we have to believe in religion or not period. I am pellucid.[ I have dictionaries in many languages, so I haave to look up words.]It wass the Enlightment that bequaeth us notins of liberty, not an ancient book. See Richard Carriers book See Bishop Spong's. I see LEE SMOLIN'S cosmos": you thrive on talking doinkey and snake.This ais all Icare to state about apologetics.Check out modern scholarship.

Nothing wrong with modern scholarship, if you can find it. Revisionist history (like the insane "Jesus Seminar") is not real scholarship. Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They verified the historical and bibliographic accuracy of the Old Testament. Have you ever read David's insights into embryonic gastrulation in Psalm 139:15 before the invention of microscopes or "enlightened" modern science? Have you read Isaiah's verification of the Big Bang theory in Isaiah 42:5? Have you considered that when "religions" had the earth supported by giants or elephants, the Bible clearly stated that God suspended the earth in space over nothing (Job 26:7)? Have you read the miraculous biological insights of Leviticus 17:8 states that the blood is essential for life -- written many centuries before Harvey described the circulation of blood? How did these ancient Biblical authors state such scientifically ACCURATE truths before it was humanly possibly to know such things?

Have you ever read Suetonius, Pliny, or Tacitus as they describe and VERIFY the Biblical account of Jesus passion?

Using big words and quoting "scholars" with a clear agenda always sounds impressive, but it cannot diminish the verification for the Bible. Science is all about probability. We can really never know nothing for sure. Samples are tested and conclusions drawn based on these samples which we assume reflect the entire population. There are more than enough "samples" of verifiable truth concerning the Bible and Jesus Christ to more than provide statistical significance for its validity. At the least, the evidence does demand that there is more than enough reason to give it a closer inspection.

I have to ask the same question again: What is it about Jesus Christ that you hate so much? I'd love to try and understand why he bothers you so much.

Sorry, that's Leviticus 17:11, not 8. There's so many examples of amazing insight in the Bible that it's easy to forget some of the verse numbers.

morganlynnlamberth:

You keep throwing out names of books that you have read, but have you ever read anything other than books that were trying to disprove Christianity? To come to a conclusion, you must look at ALL the evidence that is available. You are not making an unbiased conclusion without doing that. Have you ever read "The Case For Christ" or any of Lee Strobel's books? Have you ever STUDIED the bible itself to come to your conclusions? How much REAL research have you actually done? Or are just being spoon-fed information and going on that because that seems more "logical" to you?

For someone that has as much knowledge as you say you do, ignorance should not be an excuse.

Here. Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11769179/site/newsweek/
It's a book review that has just been released in the popular media. The point of the book supports what I said above: about how Jesus is the antithesis of "religion".

If you dislike religion, I'm right there with you.

If you hate Jesus, I don't understand. He did not like religion either and came to replace it.

Pretty cool guy!