It is true that Christianity - and all major world religions for that matter - is extremely diverse in its practices. That’s disturbing even from a Christian perspective. But there is a positive that comes from it as well: Christianity is a faith that allows for a tremendous amount of diversity. And to echo some things that have already been said here, it’s only the most extreme right-wing cases that don’t accept that diversity. You’ll find the same thing Islam and Judaism.

We Christians may argue about a lot of petty differences - very bothersome - but one thing remains the same: We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of those who would accept Him as their Lord and Savior. The Bible is a very mysterious book, and Christians everywhere need to accept that there is a certain degree of mystery to it. That means we’ll never have all the answers…and I’m okay with that.

fwiw,

JDV

The groups of people you cited in this article were mainly from fringe radical groups or cults, not Orthodox Christians. This is not the way we think nor is it how I believe my God wants us to think.”

I’ll begin with the first sentence. I think one point of citing the fringe elements of religion is to demonstrate how far afield religious thought can stray from reasoned thought. Unfortunately, religious thought is all of a piece; the distinctions between beliefs and the practices carried out on the basis of those beliefs are differences in degree, not in kind. Religious thought occurs on a continuum and it is difficult (perhaps impossible) to define the points on that continuum at which beliefs cross from orthodox to radical to disturbing to dangerous, etc. Religion does not have the self-correcting mechanisms of science or logic, and, as Dawkins points out, westerners are expected to respect, or at least tolerate, all religions equally. Such respect is precarious in a world in which bona fide lunatics can wreak horrendous destruction upon themselves and their neighbors.

Now I will look briefly at your second sentence. Based on the entirety of your comment, I suspect that you are a believer with whom I would love to chat, have a cup of coffee, etc. I would probably love to live next door to you. Unfortunately, you reveal the weakness of your position by saying that radicalism is not how you believe your God wants us to think. Your religious vision may be beautiful, but it is yours alone; your understanding of your God is yours alone. And that’s the problem with religion in general.

Oh, we point to “authoritative” texts and cite them as our foundations, but textual interpretation is a free-for-all in which anything goes. Yes, there are advanced methods of biblical study available, but not everyone agrees that they should be applied. Even among those who apply the newer, more scientific means of study, there are thousands of interpretive results that compete for dominance. There is no mechanism by which believers can test the teachings of Borg or Wright or Spong or Colson or Ehrman or Geisler or Craig, or even Pope Benedict, and can, at the very least, weed out the mistaken or misleading or dangerous beliefs. There is no falsification in religion.

You also stated, “The mind justifies what the heart has already chosen.” This, is, alas true in too many cases. The challenge for all humankind is to strike the appropriate balance whereby both mind and heart can inform and influence each other so that life will be enjoyed and enriched to its fullest.

Thanks for your input. Sorry I’ve gone on a bit in my response.

And the bigger issue still remains. If prayer is central to mainstream religion, and if it involves somehow getting the divine to do something that he already know he/she will do:
1) Where is the proof that it is happening?
2) Doesn’t it seem a slightly odd thing to have to do?
In other words, it is both irrational and unscientific. And therefore mainstream religion is part of a pre-Englightenment culture.