The main tenet of Christian doctrine?

I think the slim Buddhas are the Indian ones.

The slim Buddhas are rather nice though if you pick one with a calm expression.

One of the things I do (italics, how do you do that?) find difficult about Christianity is the crucifix.

As I say to my Christian friend (a vicar), why not pick something more uplifting to focus on? Why the emphasis on such suffering, on and on for the last two thousand years?

Sounds simple enough to me Bags. And bloody difficult. If not impossible.

"fault"???! THOUGHT!!!

No. You're right petallus. says so here. I've never given it a lot of fault. I hate those fat bellied Buddha things! Eurgh!

Strictly speaking Buddhism is not a religion, since there is no belief in a supernatural being.

There's quite a lot about loving yourself and others though.

Perhaps not in so many words.

Simple!? Haha! if only..

The other religions all use the golden rule. So do non-religious philosophies.

At least Jesus knew how to make it simple.

Ok. Quote me just when the Buddha said that? Or any of the other lots.

FYI - all religions have the same commandments - just worded differently. I hate the fact that Christians feel that it is the only religion that has that philosphy.

Only the angels are good enough to stick to it though.

Jesus gave us two commandments. They are: Love God. And, Love thy neighbour as thyself.

The Christian church is built around that philosophy.

Exactly, vamp. What we believe isn't all that important except for purposes of discussion and if it interferes with how we behave towards others. Beliefs (or states of mind) that lead someone to thinking suicide bombing is a good idea, for instance, need challenging and dealing with. Believing there is an afterlife, or not believing it, doesn't really make any difference to anyone except the person doing the believing/non-believing.

That said, I find it interesting from a demographic point of view that more and more people are becoming "Nones".

I thought it was 'wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all nice to each other'.

Although RC I have doubts about the divinity of Christ as this was only put into official Church teachings at the First Council of Nicea in 325CE.

So, in the end, it doesn't really matter whether one has faith or not. Some people feel better with it. Some people feel better without it. The bus slogan doesn't miss the point at all from my point of view. Neither does Dawkins' letter suggest any of the dismissiveness that you seem to see in it, lily. As you say, perhaps (perhaps), there is more than one kind of truth. So neither approach is wrong then?

People who are members of faith communities do have evidence-based reason and tradition. We aren't idiots and some of us have even been trained in scientific method. There is more than one kind of truth. It seems astonishing to me that Dawkins completely discounts all the great thinkers of the past who have been believers. Or that he thinks those many thousands of believers who dedicated themselves to improving and changing the world were misguided or misled. Faith is answering questions that Dawkins doesn't ask. 'Stop worrying, there probably isn't a God' - the slogan they put on buses (I think I've got it right). Total misunderstanding! I don't worry because I know there is a God.

Here is a letter Dawkins wrote to his 10 year old daughter, explaining how she can work out what is worth believing, and what is not:

britatheist.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/richard-dawkins-letter-to-his-daughter.html

I love it - it says it all, really. It teaches her how to see the difference between things from tradition and revelation on the one hand, and evidence-based reason on the other.

You surprise me, Alexa - I thought you were coming from a Christian point of view on this, but it just goes to show how wrong one can be!

Ana thanks, I know you were being serious. I do say that I am an atheist when the question comes up which it almost never does, naturally, except from time to time on philosophyclub which is one of my favourite internet haunts.I never claim to be a Christian mainly because I like discussions and tutorials better than sermons, and also perhaps I'd have to
believe some things I don't.

On the other hand I liked everything Sister Wendy said in her Christmas TV.

(In case you thought not...)

I was being serious, Alexa.

MiceElf also says, 'That Jesus is fully human and fully divine'. I think the Creed is a clear statement of faith.

A Christian atheist, perhaps?

I interpret MiceElf's contribution regarding the defining teaching as The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would want for yourself, not to exclude the Silver Rule of course). With the difference that for Christians the example to follow is not a book of rules or inspiration but a living person.

However do the Christian powers that be say that Christians invariably must accept that this person , Jesus, was resurrected in a unique historical event, or that he was himself a historically unique exemplar?

For instance, is it possible to be accounted a Christian if the Resurrection is taken as metaphor only ? Or if the Incarnation is taken as metaphor symbolising the goodness that is inherent in humans?