Question for the religious and non religious folks who...

@REMsleep What good news? I don't call genocide of indigenous peoples by belligerent invading christians "good". I'd like to hear the good news of christianity being eradicated.

@Sharon Lady if you are going to be against anything please have it be for valid reasons that are regarding the religion not what some people do in the name of it.
Most political movements have done tremendous harm to various groups of people but it dosent mean that all of those movements are bad.

Every type of ideology that you can imagine has been used to wield power, subjugate others, murders countless people around the world. Lots of people that want power or personal gain use the church for their own needs just as they use race, politics, gender and any other source of division that people believe in and sort themselves into.
That has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Your issue seems to be with human nature itself.

@REMsleep The religion is the people who follow it. If christianity had no followers it would cease to exist.

@Sharon Your response is not logical.
The same could be true of anything.

Democrats or Republicans or Liberals or Communists or Hindus or Humanists are only as good as the people who follow those ideologies/beliefs.
Yet I can quickly point out both massively good and massively horrible groups and movements within each set.
Your conclusion cannot apply to Christianity if it doesn't also apply to every other group thereby your definition.....
all people groups are squarely either good or bad point blank and that is not how the world ( humanity)works.
Many people who are not true Christians align with the church for their own reasons. There have been countless priests that do not even believe. The Bible meantions that this would be true for many who claim to follow God.
Anyway Christianity is a person relationship with God.

@REMsleep I agree, all groups are composed of their members. We're discussing the group called "christianity", which is composed of christians. What christians do is what christianity is. As I said, without its members (in this case christians), the group (christianity) would cease to exist.

Typical christian hubris, christianity is not just another religion.

@Sharon Well you are making assumptions about me and what I said. When I said, I only meantioned Christianity because we are primarily discussing Christianity here as you yourself said in your reply.

Its not hubris to meantion Christianity when we are discussing Christianity.
Its not hubris to say that Christianity is a personal relationship with God. Thats literally what the Bible Teaches and even though I don't subscribe to any other religion there are many other religions and spiritual paths that teach that those paths are a personal relationship with God as well.
How did you get Christian hubris from my statement? You are looking for something that I'm not doing.

Christians are humans and they have many good people and some bad people. Some people again are in or near the church or claim the church but they clearly dont practice the religion and that has no bearing on the goodness of the religion itself.

@REMsleep I call it hubris because that description is used to hold christianity out as something other than just another religion. As if it is somehow better or more valid than other beliefs.

@Sharon I can't regulate your own personal assumptions and biases. If you are going to engage in dialouge with another person you must at least respond taking what they say at face value.
I didn't say what you claim so thats not really something to bring up here to me.
You accuse me of hubris not becof what I said but because you feel like its used to hold Christianity out as better.
Thats not a fair conversation.

@REMsleep That is exactly what I did. I quoted you verbatim and responed appropriately, taking what you said at face value.

You claimed that -
I then explained why it is.

@Sharon Your explanation of my words is incorrect. You assigned some arbitrary meaning that was neither my intention nor to the letter of what was actually said by me.
Thats where the problem lies and you seem not to even see that you've done this. There is no way to dialouge with a person such as yourself because no matter what I say and no matter how I explain it you will accuse me of what your preconception is anyway.
That is not a fair conversation.

@REMsleep No, I did not assign any meaning to your words, I took them as having the common meaning, recorded in English dictionaries. I always presume a person is saying what they mean to say. I accept that can be a problem if English is not their first language and I try to make allowance for that.

Can you spot the deliberate grammatical error in my last sentence?