What conspiracies do you find interesting or do you think have merit?

Perhaps, but other times there might be very few people that have a clear picture of the events.

Do you think Christianity is a conspiracy?

@MarsSword: Do you mean was it a conspiracy 2000 years ago that got out of control? Or are you asking if it is a conspiracy today?

@sarabee1995: Oh, I mean did it start as a conspiracy...

@MarsSword: Hmmm, I'm not sure who the conspirators would have been at the time. Certainly would not have included the Romans, very unlikely to have included the local Jewish leadership. Very hard to say who would have had the motive [b][u]and[/u][/b] to ability to enact such a conspiracy. If I had to venture a guess today, I would say no.

@MarsSword: In answer to your question of whether "Christianity" is a conspiracy.... No, I think there is enough 'personal anecdotal evidence' (personal revelations of God and Christ) appearing/acting in people's lives (yes, I know attribution theory is at play there), that I am not willing to believe that it is all fabrication. HOWEVER: I do harbor a belief that the Catholic church has concocted it's own version of what Christianity should be. I cite the Nicean Councils as evidence of 'consolidation' of 'facts' surrounding the books and the translations of writings that went into the Bible. In fact, I still harbor a disbelief of the wording of the "Lord's Prayer" because I cannot believe that God would "Lead us into temptation" - I believe instead that He might lead us away from temptation or simply 'keep us from temptation'.

@JollyRoger: @sarabee1995: It is hard to picture what motive there would have been for making such a conspiracy. Especially because all the original founders/members died horrible deaths as a result of their beliefs.

Jolly are you a Christian then? So do you not believe in the infallibility of scripture?

Isn't the Lord's prayer "Lead us not into temptation"?

@MarsSword: You're right Mars. No where does it say God would lead us into temptation.

@MarsSword: Yes, I'm a Christian, and yes, the Lord's prayer is "Lead us not into temptation" BUT: If I'm following the Lord, why should I have to question where He's leading me? So: Why would I petition Him 'not' to lead me anywhere?

No... I certainly don't believe in the infallibility of scripture because scripture was written by men who were inspired to do their best for their fellow men by recording experiences they had in their minds as a means of counselling them. How they interpreted those experiences gives us the 'written word'. I certainly give great credence to The Word as a means to find a path when no other clear path is visible, but that path is/was set in a time and a place. The importance placed on 'scripture' is another one of those 'Catholic' constructs that binds people to the church and its control over them. In other words: God gave me a mind; He/She gave me my senses to observe the world around me and to make choices from what I saw; He/She gave me my soul and a promise that If I should practise 'goodness' then I shall have my soul recognized as 'good' and I will be welcomed by Him/Her in eternity. So far, and as much as I can tell I am still practising 'goodness.' I don't live in fear, and I (currently) do not yearn to be told how to live my life. (Oh boy... you opened a long discussion with that question) I'll stop there.

@JollyRoger: [i][c=#003BB2]"In other words: God gave me a mind; He/She gave me my senses to observe the world around me and to make choices from what I saw; He/She gave me my soul and a promise that If I should practise 'goodness' then I shall have my soul recognized as 'good' and I will be welcomed by Him/Her in eternity. So far, and as much as I can tell I am still practising 'goodness.' I don't live in fear, and I (currently) do not yearn to be told how to live my life."[/c][/i]

This is very much NOT a Christian doctrine. I like it and I find myself increasingly in a very similar place. But you cannot simultaneously claim this as your (or my) belief system and still claim the title "Christian".

As for adherence to Scripture, I find just as much, if not more, teaching to be subservient to the Word in Protestant teachings than in Catholic. The vast majority of Catholics I know have never read any Scripture.

@JollyRoger: I do agree with Sarabee, the basic tenets of Christianity are belief in one God, an understanding that humanity is flawed and sinful, belief that Jesus Christ lived and died that we might receive salvation and be forgiven for our sins. That salvation is found in love and the sacrifice of another as opposed to earning it. But it cannot be said that one loves God if one does not try to do right by Him. Those basic tenets are was are required to be a Christian, regardless of the denomination or division of Christianity. Catholic and Protestant alike.

The Lord's prayer may be awkwardly worded in English. But I believe it means steer us away from temptation. As God would not tempt us or allow us to be tempted beyond what we can endure. Or at least that is what I have been told.

@sarabee1995: True, Scripture is held as sacred in both Protestant and Catholic churches.

@sarabee1995: Sure I can... I follow the teachings of Jesus as I believe them (not everything in the Bible is bunk). It's just that as a "Christian Society" we have come to believe that people need a church to be a Christian. In reality it's that churches need Christians to retain their hold on how to 'guide' the Christian belief. So, I do go to church once in a while just to see if my feet are still following the 'mainstream path' and (hopefully) to hear a good sermon that inspires me when I've grown a bit stale in being (what I believe to be) 'doing good'.
If you are now saying, "Well, Christianity has always been a sense of community - drawing on the early communities like Thessalonia (Thessalonians), Rome (Romans), Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, etc.... those folks truly needed each other because the stories of Jesus were being told as the Apostles were traveling around preaching. Now we have The Bible and those teachings (Paul's letters, John's revelations, etc.) are in one easy reference book.
My initial statement on this (check back) was that the Catholic church has conveniently made the "Jesus" stories all jibe when they got together at Nicea.... the whole purpose of the conventions was to get the Christian story straight so it wouldn't become a fairy-tale with various plots and endings. BUT in the process (I believe) it was very convenient to also make the 'necessary' changes to produce the 'best story'. AND therefore I do NOT TAKE "all" OF THE SCRIPTURES AS ABSOLUTE TRUTHS.
Now to tie this into the conversation that MarsSword started: When people get together to make 'something' happen - that is a conspiracy. In this case it's the conspiracy of the Catholic church to make Christianity unquestioningly believable. Obviously I may be the only person who believes their action was a conspiracy.

@MarsSword: Of course you are right. My postulation, simply stated, is that some poor monk made a mistake when he translated certain words into English and that since the good King James' advisors missed the error and the "King James Version" was solomnly declared as TRUTH: Nobody has had the "guts" to point out the mistake. I liken it to the story of the Empororer's new clothes!

@JollyRoger: So you do believe in the basic tenets of Christianity?

The council at Nicea didn't do a very good job of getting it all to agree... There are so many questions I have of scripture.

@MarsSword: I believe MOST of the tenets of Christianity. I still have difficulty with the Apostle's Creed (BTW - it was a contract written by those at Nicea). I do not believe that Christ [u]is[/u] God as in the "Holy Trinity." I do not believe that Christ was God's son at the 'beginning of time' as the Holy Trinity suggests. I do believe that Christ is God's only son as begat by the virgin Mary as per the book of Luke. The reason I believe this is that throughout all the scriptures Jesus refers to God as "My Father" and he acknowledges that he was sent by The Father to do His work among men. Also, at Gethsemane Jesus pled with His Father to be spared from the crucifixion. These actions do not put Christ on a 'par' with God. Yet, I have no doubts about Christ being alive and reigning at the right hand of God. Nor do I have any doubts about the Holy Spirit (Ghost) being among men.
So: The deeper I go to explain my feelings of a Catholic conspiracy in the Christian faith, the longer my writings become!

@JollyRoger: I appreciate your logical approach and find myself thinking back over what I know as I read your thoughts. Christ does say that he is one with the Father and that the Father is he. He does claim that, "I am", as God told Moses in times past.

The trinity is a concept that I do find difficult also. One God makes so much more sense. The best description of it that I have read is that by C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity".

Hmm... I can't compete with Lewis. And I have not read "Mere Christianity" to know it.
Again: My reasoning is that 'despite' certain writings (I'm weak here) I have to fall back on the possibility that some "Christian" tenets may have been conveniently created to give a cohesive relevance to Jesus' life and purpose on earth. We might also remember that at the time Christianity was coming into being, there were many competing mystical and magical beliefs: Norse gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Druidism and thousands of years of Chinese and East Indian beliefs. I do excuse myself for not having been there, but the power of suggestion (drawing from Jesuit teachings to the Hurons) was rampant in getting the "New" idea of Christianity into mainstream discussions. No, I can't say what IS the truth: but I do have my doubts about the integrity of almost all people who have a vested interest in creating a base for increasing their power over others. i.e., the Catholic church.

@MarsSword: Just one more aside on "being 'one' with the Father'": You are falling back on the book of Genesis? Where God is quoted as saying "Let US make man in OUR image...."? Those stories can only come to us from Adam as he told them to his children over the course of his lifetime (many centuries). I challenge you to tell me the same story verbatim two days running and not mistake a phrase. Now again, I challenge the listener to that story to commit it to writing (I believe Adam was illiterate??) many centuries later and then have it consecrated by a person in authority to be the immutable truth and now tell me that it IS an immutable truth!
I guess you see there MIGHT be room for error?
What MIGHT the most convenient interpretation be? AND again: I wasn't there!

@JollyRoger: I definately see and share some of the same thoughts about the infallibility of scripture but find it hard to find another source to base one's faith upon.

As for C.S. Lewis, I would highly recommend reading his book "Mere Christianity" as he tackles man hard truths of the Christian faith from a non scriptural perspective which I think you would appreciate and enjoy.

@MarsSword: Why would you NEED any specific source to base your faith upon? Your faith is just that"Faith" - it's your BELIEF. Nobody can take it from you...only you can change it.
Comparisons are a good way to discern what might be a better belief, but I still adhere to Christianity because it teaches 'goodness' AND it gives a clear promise that God (the purpose of any belief) will reward me for simply having a 'good' soul.
Jesus was a Jew. He was sent to change Judaism to be socially based as it had developed into a religion based on laws only, i.e., God would be offended if you 'broke' a law and atonement was required or all Jews would suffer. Islam is similar: you are back to believing that other laws and deeds govern your reward. Hinduism is a hierarchical system where you have to 'earn' your way up.
So: 'Do good' is simple. Why complicate your beliefs?