It doesn’t rule out Christianity. Jesus said that not everyone who called themselves by his name was his disciple.
Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy, I know. But it isn’t.
I’m not changing the definition after the fact. The definition was set long ago.
“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” This wasn’t just a command – it showed how to identify Christians. It seems to me that killing one another with the blessing of the church falls outside of this.

Now I’m quoting scripture, which I prefer not to do in internet forums, because of the debates it can lead to. But I didn’t like the way I left my last post hanging.

—I’d hardly call that a few! I wonder how many members of these churches support this nonsense unwittingly?”

The World Council of Churches is a leftist organization that militates against the very theolgical foundations of Christianity.

They do not represent anyone but themselves and their desire to promote one-worldism, which is the very antithesis of Christianity.

From the article: The WCC brings together 348 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican churches representing about 560 million Christians in 110 countries.

I’d hardly call that a few! I wonder how many members of these churches support this nonsense unwittingly?

It shows only that a few elitists teach political correctness in the name of Christianity.

#36

the true religion would not have its adherents attack one another with guns and bombs on opposite sides of the same war, both blessed by ministers and chaplains of the same religion, each telling their side that God wished it to kill the other.

That rules out Christianity. Any candidates?

http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1

I read another very revealing critique of this article by Culotta on this website. I would highly recommend it. http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20091109a

This is my favorite site for the creation/evolution debate. In another insightful post, the author suggested approaching these guys with this statement:

“It should be a cinch to stop the secular Darwinists in their tracks. Just arrange a new debate between modern-day counterparts of Thomas Huxley and Bishop Butler, and let Butler begin by saying this: “Mr. Huxley, I am a man created in the image of God, and you are an evolved mammal. Everything you do revolves around eating and mating. Tell me, why should I believe anything you say?” A little reflection shows that Huxley is trapped. He wants to reach outside his fur and embrace the conceptual realm, but he can’t.”

This is exactly what Ms. Culotta is trying to do!

I think we could use this approach on Ms. Culotta as well!

Perhaps the one true religion came from God and is a good thing, while the multitude of false religions, which came from man, are bad things insofar as they deviate from the true religion. Perhaps the true religion proposes doctrines that harmonize with and yet transcend human reason, recommending that we “love our enemies” but allowing ourselves to defend ourselves against them if we must; while the false religions, conceived by mortal humans and imperfect minds, play right into our baser instincts, and bid us to kill anyone we don’t like.

Perhaps the true religion, insisting on the inherent dignity of the human person, prompted a nation to free slaves, defend life, and provide an environment where all could practice virtue, while a false religion, offended by the true religion, immediately began to mock the idea of human dignity, promote vice, and establish a culture of death.

A reasonable (although admittedly unscientific) answer to this question is still likely to sound like a silly fairy tale to someone prejudiced against of the idea of a creator.

But it’s also a fair question for someone without such prejudice, so here’s an answer to take or leave:

Man is inclined toward religion because he was created to live under the guidance of his creator. Having turned aside from that direction, he fills that void with inventions, “gods,” of his own. Throw in one or more godlike persons seeking to subvert mankind for their own purposes who exploit that need for spirituality through misinformation and misdirection, and it’s no wonder that the religions of the world are a tapestry of conflicting beliefs and behaviors. (And no, I’m not drawing a line with crosses on one side and everything else on the other.)

Like I said, if the premise of a creator is ridiculous to you, then so is this. But if anyone really wants to know, the religious chaos around us is not automatically incompatible with the existence of a creator.