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.
Ah, we agree - sort of.
In fact, I think it is totally irrelevant if a leader is religious;
well, hmmmm in fact, as in Iran, it is down right dangerous
true, 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.
agree
Faith of any kind does not dictate a good leader, nor does it preclude bad ones.
Let's go out on a speculative limb here: if Jesus were the leader of our country would he, obviously being informed by his religious worldview, be, in your opinion, a good leader? A bad one?
So, would you extend this comment towards the fellow who is the basis of your particular sect of Christianity, Calvin?
I have no problem saying Calvin was overall a good leader. That doesn't mean I worship him. He was a man who tried his best to serve Christ and his theological legacy is rich and beneficial for understanding Biblical Christian faith. And I am not a member of a "particular sect of Christianity", I am a member of a 'branch' of the church of Jesus Christ.
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.
Calvin never did what you say he did, at least not personally. That does not say none of his followers did, and he objected vigorously.
In a way of speaking, yes, Calvin is credited as the 'father' of the Reformed branch of the church. Note that I use a lower case 'f' on 'father', that's deliberate because God is Father - as Calvin was well aware and taught. History has not always been kind to him, because of some of the hard truths of the Bible he helped emphasize in their proper Biblical context.
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.
Right - so what produces that 'bad-ness'?
LOL... if I was perfect, then I could lay claim to being the second coming, couldn't I? Or the first for the Jews.
- nah, you aren't God!!!
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.
Again, which came first? God's law code predates all human devised ones. And didn't Hammurabi (18th century B.C) profess to be a religious man who got his inspiration from the gods?
You are right about his law being heavy on the death sentence, a person could get put to death for looking the wrong way down the street and squinting!!! (that's hyperbole BTW). There would certainly have to be a LOT of revision to Hammurabi's Code if it were to be presented and adopted as law today in our society!
Do you really understand the reasoning and purpose behind God's Old Testament commands?
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.
How do we know right from wrong, and why don't we do right? How is it that we are doing a pretty good job at defining a civil society? What contributes to that? Does it have anything to do with particular worldviews? If so, which ones?
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?
Agreed, every 'religion' has its wackos, scammers, etc!The world would be a better place, but it'd be a whole lot less interesting - who would we roll our eyes at and ridicule?
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?
Good question - however it is raised from within a Western cultural perspective that still holds to some 'favoritism' given to the Christian label. But that is changing as more and more western media and atheists try to push Christianity to the fringes of society - example: somewhere above in another post Arachnodisiac brought forth the post-modern worldview tenet that faith is and must be solely a private matter - it cannot be allowed to exist in the public realm. Of course, no one tells us how we're supposed to bifurcate ourselves in such a way that our faith would never follow us into the public realm.
Besides, we don't have to expose and denounce them - they do a good job of that themselves. Some of them have been soundly denounced by Christian leaders - but that's generally not newsworthy enough to make the MSM. Nevertheless, and not to defend them in any way, and as despicable as some of their activities and teachings are, I don't see any of them killing and destroying like some of the radicals of the Muslim religion.