Reply #22: I agree

[TWiley]

But, why is it that the "peaceful Christians" have no voice? Some combination of these two ideas would likely be true.

1) The group of "peaceful Christians" is small and obscure. So small that it is not worthy of a national voice.

2) The group of "peaceful Christians" is actually the majority, and they are simply not represented.

The reason I use the word "majority in example 2 is that if the majority of Christians were indeed "bloodthirsty" then this discussion would be mute. You would have no point to prove.

So, If Times list of the 25 most influential Christians is correct, and this "influence" is measured by following, and it is also true that all 25 support bush and his war in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it based on fraud, then the only conclusion would be that "Christians" are simply bloodthirsty, and do not need a definitive and rational reason to kill someone of another race or religion.

I used to struggle with it too, but I have accepted the truth. The "majority" is not wrong, they do represent the group. Your conception of Christianity needs to be updated in order to properly reflect common usage.

If there is evidence of a "peaceful Christian" majority in America, then SHOW ME THE PROOF. Unfortunately, there is none.