Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Justsomeguy
Finally, remember that your final statement is just a normative statement. You really can't say whether it's fragmented or not. In fact, when a religion accounts for 33% of the world's population in such a diverse world, it's hard to really even have that idea taken seriously. Sure, some parts may not be as strong, but there definitely is evolving and innovative aspects existing today that did not centuries ago. To be honest, your final statement makes it very hard to interpret your entire post as a legitimate challenge rather than a direct attack.
|
What i meant was that the term christianity as it is used commonly, refers to a vast mishmash of often contradictory factions whose only connection is some sort of belief in the messianic christ. Christianity is not consistent. Many of its various factions don't trust eachother. Ask a southern baptist how they feel about the united church of christ if you don't believe me. For many christians, salvation requires not only that someone be christian, but that someone be the right kind of christian. If you feel attacked, don't blame me, blame club christianity's loose entry requirements.
I would say that having any ruling class too in line with the religious beliefs of only a portion of their population increases the risk of oppression for all of those who don't share the ruler's belief system. Increases the risk. One need only look to iran to see the possible failures of a government too caught up in religious ideals. I don't care if politicians are christian. I see a problem in letting people attempt to create a government in their god's own image.
The moral integrity you attach to christians is meaningless. Morality is not a requirement for someone to self identify as christian. Nor is christianity a requirement for someone to act in a morally consistent fashion.