[Niamh.]

With all due respect Kirk, people are perfectly entitled to discuss these subjects. Me personally, as a person who was born into Catholicism and imo a victim of attempted brain washing, I feel particularly justified in being able to speak about or against Christianity if I want to. You may call it attacking people of faith, I call it speaking about something which was forced upon me as an impressionable child.

[Kizzy]

The whole problem I have with religion as it's manifested in the modern day is that as everything today it's run as a business, having the same structure effectively as a major consortium.
And much like big business less and less money is trickling down from the top.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The whole problem I have with religion as it's manifested in the modern day is that as everything today it's run as a business, having the same structure effectively as a major consortium.
And much like big business less and less money is trickling down from the top.

Yep, imo, organised religions have always been a way to have power over and control the masses and make some money. I went through a phase of being completely fascinated by Scientology and i did a bit of reading up on it. The funniest thing I thought about the whole thing was that L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer and he'd apparently said before he'd started the religion that the best way to make money was to start a religion..........

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

With all due respect Kirk, people are perfectly entitled to discuss these subjects. Me personally, as a person who was born into Catholicism and imo attempted brain washing, I feel particularly justified in being able to speak about or against Christianity if I want to. You may call it attacking people of faith, I call it speaking about something which was forced upon me as an impressionable child.

Indeed and the attacking faith line only stands up if we respect faith and frankly that boat sailed 50 years ago.

Faith is a fancy word for something rather unpleasant in my eyes and at best its believing in something coz thats the way i was told or coz it says so in some badly typeset collection of myths from the bronze age

faith used to be a badge of honour, but now its not, thankfully

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Indeed and the attacking faith line only stands up if we respect faith and frankly that boat sailed 50 years ago.

Faith is a fancy word for something rather unpleasant in my eyes and at best its believing in something coz thats the way i was told or coz it says so in some badly typeset collection of myths from the bronze age

faith used to be a badge of honour, but now its not, thankfully

Yeah or because this is the country I was born in, we could all be Muslims or Hindus or whatever if we'd been born in another part of the world

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Indeed and the attacking faith line only stands up if we respect faith and frankly that boat sailed 50 years ago.

Faith is a fancy word for something rather unpleasant in my eyes and at best its believing in something coz thats the way i was told or coz it says so in some badly typeset collection of myths from the bronze age

faith used to be a badge of honour, but now its not, thankfully

Tell me L.T do you see faith in the same light as indoctrination about other issues like homosexuality and Lesbianism are evil, or black people are inherently less intelligent than white people.

Could it be that we have been brainwashed by successive generations to believe certain values or precepts and religion is one of them.

Perhaps as we become more enlightened religion or more specifically organised religion will come to be seen for what it actually is....???

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I watched the movie "Zeitgeist" a few years ago and was simply blown away by it, since then it has prompted me to carry out a lot more research into the "New world Order" and profit from Wars.

The film touches on how all religions are based on the Astromonical events that suuround the seasons together with the Zodiac. But these claims although plausible are only touched on in the Film. The film is more concerned with the banking Cartels and how Power and wealth is distributed in our world and how most major events Wars etc.. are planned and executed for a host of sinister reasons.

Good post as usual Nedusa.

I actually agree with a lot (not all) of the New World Order' theories and could even add to them from my own personal experience and knowledge (but won't as I am fed up of (futilely) arguing and 'flogging dead horses) but it is the Jesus/Mithros/Horus claims that I do not accept - especially when the evidence that such claims are wrong is overwhelming.

Why is it that the very same people who constantly criticise people of faith (especially Christians) for believing in 'fairy tales' or 'myths' are yet the most perversely obstinate in their belief of the most false claims of secular of theories - even when confronted by the most irrefutable of evidence?

The entire Dan Brown 'Da Vinci' is based upon lies and deliberately forged documents - yet millions still believe:

1) Brown wrongly says that the ancient Olympics were held ‘as a tribute to the magic of Venus’ (p. 61). In fact, they were held to honour Zeus, the ‘king’ of the Greek gods, and in any case, Venus was a Roman goddess not a Greek one.

2) The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947 (not ‘the 1950s’, p. 317), do not contain any ‘gospels’ (p. 331), as they pre-date the New Testament.

3) The Priory of Sion (Brown’s alleged protector of the ‘secret’ about Jesus) was not founded in Jerusalem in 1099 by King Godefroi de Bouillon (p. 217). It was ‘invented’ and registered (to comply with French law) on 7 May 1956 by two Frenchmen, convicted con-man Pičrre Plantard and André Bonhomme. Thus most of Brown’s plot involving Leonardo is based on a proven fraud.

4) Brown describes the Holy of Holies as a subterranean vault under Solo*mon’s Temple in Jerusalem (p. 566). This is false. It was a small room within the Temple, where the High Priest offered sacrifices (1 Kings 7:50).

5) Brown says that the Shekinah was a female deity, equal to Jehovah, residing in this Temple (pp. 411, 584). This is false. Shekinah is a Hebrew word that refers to the visible manifestation of God’s glory.

6) Brown says that the word ‘Jehovah’ is a combination of ‘the masculine Jah with the feminine pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah’, which gives the Jewish YHWH (p. 411). This is false. Jehovah is the anglicized form of the Hebrew YHWH, God’s personal name which He revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14–15).

It is the same with those who continue to wave aloft the con-woman Lynn Picknett's book - " TheTurin Shroud: In Whose Image?" as 'evidence that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Turin Shroud - despite irrefutable evidence that such claims are rubbish, not least that the Shroud was around over 100 years before Da Vinci was even born.

These anti-Christian con artistes are making a lot of money and converting thousands to their cause, but anyone who really wants to know the truth can find it easily with a little bit of research.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Tell me L.T do you see faith in the same light as indoctrination about other issues like homosexuality and Lesbianism are evil, or black people are inherently less intelligent than white people.

Could it be that we have been brainwashed by successive generations to believe certain values or precepts and religion is one of them.

Perhaps as we become more enlightened religion or more specifically organised religion will come to be seen for what it actually is....???

I like the way we now look forward and believe in things until the evidence suggests otherwise rather than believe things from long ago and close the book.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Good post as usual Nedusa.

I actually agree with a lot (not all) of the New World Order' theories and could even add to them from my own personal experience and knowledge (but won't as I am fed up of (futilely) arguing and 'flogging dead horses) but it is the Jesus/Mithros/Horus claims that I do not accept - especially when the evidence that such claims are wrong is overwhelming.

Why is it that the very same people who constantly criticise people of faith (especially Christians) for believing in 'fairy tales' or 'myths' are yet the most perversely obstinate in their belief of the most false claims of secular of theories - even when confronted by the most irrefutable of evidence?

The entire Dan Brown 'Da Vinci' is based upon lies and deliberately forged documents - yet millions still believe:

1) Brown wrongly says that the ancient Olympics were held ‘as a tribute to the magic of Venus’ (p. 61). In fact, they were held to honour Zeus, the ‘king’ of the Greek gods, and in any case, Venus was a Roman goddess not a Greek one.

2) The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947 (not ‘the 1950s’, p. 317), do not contain any ‘gospels’ (p. 331), as they pre-date the New Testament.

3) The Priory of Sion (Brown’s alleged protector of the ‘secret’ about Jesus) was not founded in Jerusalem in 1099 by King Godefroi de Bouillon (p. 217). It was ‘invented’ and registered (to comply with French law) on 7 May 1956 by two Frenchmen, convicted con-man Pičrre Plantard and André Bonhomme. Thus most of Brown’s plot involving Leonardo is based on a proven fraud.

4) Brown describes the Holy of Holies as a subterranean vault under Solo*mon’s Temple in Jerusalem (p. 566). This is false. It was a small room within the Temple, where the High Priest offered sacrifices (1 Kings 7:50).

5) Brown says that the Shekinah was a female deity, equal to Jehovah, residing in this Temple (pp. 411, 584). This is false. Shekinah is a Hebrew word that refers to the visible manifestation of God’s glory.

6) Brown says that the word ‘Jehovah’ is a combination of ‘the masculine Jah with the feminine pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah’, which gives the Jewish YHWH (p. 411). This is false. Jehovah is the anglicized form of the Hebrew YHWH, God’s personal name which He revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14–15).

It is the same with those who continue to wave aloft the con-woman Lynn Picknett's book - " TheTurin Shroud: In Whose Image?" as 'evidence that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Turin Shroud - despite irrefutable evidence that such claims are rubbish, not least that the Shroud was around over 100 years before Da Vinci was even born.

These anti-Christian con artistes are making a lot of money and converting thousands to their cause, but anyone who really wants to know the truth can find it easily with a little bit of research.

Great post Kirk..............thanks for the info I didn't know just how far Mr Brown had gone to try and create a veneer of "truth" about the claims in his book.

Clever in a way to promote your work of complete fiction with snippets of plausibility and a vignette of "undiscovered fact" thrown in to ensure people will buy it and "learn the truth"...............

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yep, imo, organised religions have always been a way to have power over and control the masses and make some money. I went through a phase of being completely fascinated by Scientology and i did a bit of reading up on it. The funniest thing I thought about the whole thing was that L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer and he'd apparently said before he'd started the religion that the best way to make money was to start a religion..........

And I APPLAUD you for this Niamh - sincerely. You think 'OUTSIDE THE BOX' and carry out further research which is exactly HOW I came to be a Christian.

I have stated many times that I am not an orthodox Christian, I believe in Christ not 'The Church', because 'The Church' is run by corrupt MAN and I actually agree with you and Kizzy and others about 'Control' and 'Money' etc.

I too examined Scientology and Islam and Rosicrucian-ism and even Von Daniken's ET God theories among other philosophies, Religions and Theories.

I actually believed in some of it all and still do but NOT ALL.

I like to think that I am intelligent and educated, and I know that I base my belief in Christ on research, analysis and a great deal of LOGIC.

I was not 'indoctrinated' into it all or 'brainwashed by parents or schools. I CHOSE to believe in Christ.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

And I APPLAUD you for this Niamh - sincerely. You think 'OUTSIDE THE BOX' and carry out further research which is exactly HOW I came to be a Christian.

I have stated many times that I am not an orthodox Christian, I believe in Christ not 'The Church', because 'The Church' is run by corrupt MAN and I actually agree with you and Kizzy and others about 'Control' and 'Money' etc.

I too examined Scientology and Islam and Rosicrucian-ism and even Von Daniken's ET God theories among other philosophies, Religions and Theories.

I actually believed in some of it all and still do but NOT ALL.

I like to think that I am intelligent and educated, and I know that I base my belief in Christ on research, analysis and a great deal of LOGIC.

I was not 'indoctrinated' into it all or 'brainwashed by parents or schools. I CHOSE to believe in Christ.

Well good for you and that's fine but the reason I do have such strong opinions on this subject is because I was indoctrinated. Ireland was almost completely run by the church up to not that long ago, that is changing but even still 90% of "state" run schools, schools that I as a tax payer am funding are Catholic schools and people of no faith are last on the list of priority when trying to enroll, this forces people to keep pretending they're Catholic just so their kids aren't made to feel like outcasts or have to be driven miles outside their own towns to enroll in the limited non denominational schools

[kirklancaster]

Sorry Niamh, but I actually posted this before I read your other post. I am sorry that this is, and as been the case in Ireland with 'Religious Indoctrination' and I detest such practices.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

With all due respect Kirk, people are perfectly entitled to discuss these subjects. Me personally, as a person who was born into Catholicism and imo a victim of attempted brain washing, I feel particularly justified in being able to speak about or against Christianity if I want to. You may call it attacking people of faith, I call it speaking about something which was forced upon me as an impressionable child.

I do not have a problem with anyone 'discussing these subjects' Niamh, I really don't. What I do have a problem with is the 'way' in which some discuss them and the unspoken accepted 'Law' on here that decrees that it is perfectly legitimate for someone to make unnecessary comments which are insensitive to Christians and can cause offence, but 'punishable' whenever a Christian responds to such comments - even if in the most innocuous of fashion.

I am sorry if the Catholic faith was 'forced upon you' Niamh - that is utterly wrong, and I have a lot of problems with Catholicism, but you have 'found your own way' and I respect your views now.

All that I ask, is that whilst discussing these topics, people respect mine.

I have qualifications in Science and Anatomy and Physiology and History, and I have a great insatiable thirst for knowledge - especially concerning certain branches of Philosophy, and I would be more than willing to discuss in depth with anyone on here just why an averagely intelligent, well read, well educated adult would CHOOSE to believe in GOD and in Jesus as The Christ, but I am afraid it would descend into the usual 'Three Ring Circus' of mockery and ridiculing where I would be outnumbered, ganged up on, and eventually banned, so it is a no no I'm afraid.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Sorry Niamh, but I actually posted this before I read your other post. I am sorry that this is, and as been the case in Ireland with 'Religious Indoctrination' and I detest such practices.



I do not have a problem with anyone 'discussing these subjects' Niamh, I really don't. What I do have a problem with is the 'way' in which some discuss them and the unspoken accepted 'Law' on here that decrees that it is perfectly legitimate for someone to make unnecessary comments which are insensitive to Christians and can cause offence, but 'punishable' whenever a Christian responds to such comments - even if in the most innocuous of fashion.

I am sorry if the Catholic faith was 'forced upon you' Niamh - that is utterly wrong, and I have a lot of problems with Catholicism, but you have 'found your own way' and I respect your views now.

All that I ask, is that whilst discussing these topics, people respect mine.

I have qualifications in Science and Anatomy and Physiology and History, and I have a great insatiable thirst for knowledge - especially concerning certain branches of Philosophy, and I would be more than willing to discuss in depth with anyone on here just why an averagely intelligent, well read, well educated adult would CHOOSE to believe in GOD and in Jesus as The Christ, but I am afraid it would descend into the usual 'Three Ring Circus' of mockery and ridiculing where I would be outnumbered, ganged up on, and eventually banned, so it is a no no I'm afraid.

People are simply giving their opinions on religion though Kirk, if they think it's all a big fairytale, that's just their opinion on it which they're perfectly entitled to hold

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yep, imo, organised religions have always been a way to have power over and control the masses and make some money. I went through a phase of being completely fascinated by Scientology and i did a bit of reading up on it. The funniest thing I thought about the whole thing was that L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer and he'd apparently said before he'd started the religion that the best way to make money was to start a religion..........

There is a really interesting documentary on Scientology that was recently shown on HBO called: Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief. It was on youtube but i notice it has been taken down by Sky TV so i presume they are planning to show it soon as well. A really interesting watch that has got great reviews.
Off topic i know but it is a good watch.

[Toy Soldier]

I just follow the good old fashioned razor on this one really.

If there are 1000 different myths that conflict so that at least 999 of them must be false, then the simplest explanation is that all 1000 are false.

[LeatherTrumpet]

If we had a debate about the Loch Ness monster (just as viable as any faith based belief) I am sure it would go around the same lines.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bobnot

There is a really interesting documentary on Scientology that was recently shown on HBO called: Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief. It was on youtube but i notice it has been taken down by Sky TV so i presume they are planning to show it soon as well. A really interesting watch that has got great reviews.
Off topic i know but it is a good watch.

Oh thanks Bob, I'll definitely try and watch that

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Peter Joseph directed Zetgeist, Josy, and Dan Brown and Acharya S produced it.

Peter Joseph is not even his real name - something which he refuses to divulge.

I am aware of the series Josy and familiar with their claims and message, and I also know that Religion is but one small element of it, but I was specifically responding to Niamh's and Ramsay's posts which in turn both dealt specifically with the Jesus/Mithras/Horus claims, so I did not concern myself with the main 'New World Order' theme as I did not deem it relevant.

Years ago, I bought certain books which included; 'The Illuminoids: Secret Societies and Political Paranoia' by Neal Wilgus, and 'A New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies' by William Still - among others - and I became familiar with the nucleus of ideas which 'Peter Joseph' has built upon.

I recognise the truth in a lot of these theories and accepted them then and still do now, but I also reject other elements which did not 'pass muster' when cross referenced with various other sources - sources which just did not merely 'refute' but gave irrefutable checkable factual evidence to support their 'debunking'.

I believe in Jesus as The Christ but I do not actively preach or try to convert anyone else because I am not bothered - as long as I KNOW what I know, I do not care what beliefs others may have. Yet, for me to sit back and do or say nothing when my beliefs are being ridiculed or mocked or Christianity is being claimed to be false means that I am legitimising being regarded as a 'misguided fool' for being a Christian or for believing in a 'fictitious character', or 'myth' or worse.

Such claims that Christianity or Jesus is a myth is particularly irritating when the corroboration which is used to justify such claims is nothing more than falsehood and fabrication and deliberate deceit.

Should I sit back and remain silent then?

If my response sometimes comes across as antagonistic or excessively intolerant, then I apologise, but it should be borne in mind that I am human, and sometimes I get annoyed and weary by the - definite - anti-Christian ethos on here. There would be a huge outcry if Islam and the Prophet Muhammad was continually 'bashed' in the same manner as Jesus and Christianity.

I am passive not pro-active as far as my beliefs are concerned and I do not enjoy any type of discussion on here concerning Christianity, because I just cannot win. If I produced Jesus himself it would not alter certain mindsets who would still believe what they want to believe.

Yet I cannot just sit back either and let attacks on my faith go unanswered - especially when the arguments for justifying such attacks are based upon nothing more than fallacy.

I've actually searched loads on this and I can't find Dan Brownes name connected to it anywhere. All I can see when i search is written, directed and produced by Peter Joesph. Also in regards to his name as far as I can see Peter Joseph is his real name, his first and middle name rather than first and surname

http://peterjoseph.info/peter-joseph-biography-updated/

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

If we had a debate about the Loch Ness monster (just as viable as any faith based belief) I am sure it would go around the same lines.

This is simply not true LT and you know it. There is overwhelming evidence - a lot of it from secular sources - that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person, that he lived and died on the cross.

Where is there any proof that Nessie ever lived?

[Josy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Peter Joseph directed Zetgeist, Josy, and Dan Brown and Acharya S produced it.

Peter Joseph is not even his real name - something which he refuses to divulge.

I am aware of the series Josy and familiar with their claims and message, and I also know that Religion is but one small element of it, but I was specifically responding to Niamh's and Ramsay's posts which in turn both dealt specifically with the Jesus/Mithras/Horus claims, so I did not concern myself with the main 'New World Order' theme as I did not deem it relevant.

Years ago, I bought certain books which included; 'The Illuminoids: Secret Societies and Political Paranoia' by Neal Wilgus, and 'A New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies' by William Still - among others - and I became familiar with the nucleus of ideas which 'Peter Joseph' has built upon.

I recognise the truth in a lot of these theories and accepted them then and still do now, but I also reject other elements which did not 'pass muster' when cross referenced with various other sources - sources which just did not merely 'refute' but gave irrefutable checkable factual evidence to support their 'debunking'.

I believe in Jesus as The Christ but I do not actively preach or try to convert anyone else because I am not bothered - as long as I KNOW what I know, I do not care what beliefs others may have. Yet, for me to sit back and do or say nothing when my beliefs are being ridiculed or mocked or Christianity is being claimed to be false means that I am legitimising being regarded as a 'misguided fool' for being a Christian or for believing in a 'fictitious character', or 'myth' or worse.

Such claims that Christianity or Jesus is a myth is particularly irritating when the corroboration which is used to justify such claims is nothing more than falsehood and fabrication and deliberate deceit.

Should I sit back and remain silent then?

If my response sometimes comes across as antagonistic or excessively intolerant, then I apologise, but it should be borne in mind that I am human, and sometimes I get annoyed and weary by the - definite - anti-Christian ethos on here. There would be a huge outcry if Islam and the Prophet Muhammad was continually 'bashed' in the same manner as Jesus and Christianity.

I am passive not pro-active as far as my beliefs are concerned and I do not enjoy any type of discussion on here concerning Christianity, because I just cannot win. If I produced Jesus himself it would not alter certain mindsets who would still believe what they want to believe.

Yet I cannot just sit back either and let attacks on my faith go unanswered - especially when the arguments for justifying such attacks are based upon nothing more than fallacy.

Dan Brown and Acharya S have nothing at all to do with Zeitgeist The Movie or Addendum? I'm confused where you are getting that info from tbh because it was written, produced, directed and edited by Peter Joseph.

As someone that was baptised, made first confession, communion and was then confirmed as a Roman Catholic I can honestly say that studying certain things, watching documentaries (a long time before Zeitgeist even came about) and basically finding my own information online has certainly opened my eyes a lot and I feel that in a way there is some brain washing goes on in schools, that's why I think it's a great thing that parents can choose whether to send their children to a religious school or opt for a non denominational.

Even though I was brought up as a Catholic though, discussion like this does not bother me one bit, if you feel you can't win then you don't have to take part but let others have their own beliefs, for you to tell another member to stop pushing the Zeitgeist movie, that it was bollocks and then go on to spam your own links of what you believe to be fact was extremely hypocritical IMO.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is simply not true LT and you know it. There is overwhelming evidence - a lot of it from secular sources - that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person, that he lived and died on the cross.

Where is there any proof that Nessie ever lived?

There were hundreds of Jesus's around that time. I am talking about evidence of supernatural powers

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Josy

Dan Brown and Acharya S have nothing at all to do with Zeitgeist The Movie or Addendum? I'm confused where you are getting that info from tbh because it was written, produced, directed and edited by Peter Joseph.

As someone that was baptised, made first confession, communion and was then confirmed as a Roman Catholic I can honestly say that studying certain things, watching documentaries (a long time before Zeitgeist even came about) and basically finding my own information online has certainly opened my eyes a lot and I feel that in a way there is some brain washing goes on in schools, that's why I think it's a great thing that parents can choose whether to send their children to a religious school or opt for a non denominational.

Even though I was brought up as a Catholic though, discussion like this does not bother me one bit, if you feel you can't win then you don't have to take part but let others have their own beliefs, for you to tell another member to stop pushing the Zeitgeist movie, that it was bollocks and then go on to spam your own links of what you believe to be fact was extremely hypocritical IMO.

I am truly sorry that you feel I am a hypocrite and also that I was misunderstood about telling Ramsay not to keep plugging Zeitgeist, because I like Ramsay and did not want him to later feel foolish when it was revealed that Zeitgeist is built upon fallacy - which it is.

I will not continue to try to explain myself - because it is futile, so I will bow out, but apologise for any unanswered questions asked of me which may be left 'hanging'.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I am truly sorry that you feel I am a hypocrite and also that I was misunderstood about telling Ramsay not to keep plugging Zeitgeist, because I like Ramsay and did not want him to later feel foolish when it was revealed that Zeitgeist is built upon fallacy - which it is.

I will not continue to try to explain myself - because it is futile, so I will bow out, but apologise for any unanswered questions asked of me which may be left 'hanging'.

Please don't twist what I actually posted Kirk, I said I felt your actions ie telling Karl not to plug something he believes then go on to spam the links that you believe in four different posts to be hypocritical.

[Toy Soldier]

Does this mean that LT will never get his evidence of supernatural powers? I hate eternal cliffhangers! This is worse than "Angel", "The 4400" or "Stargate Universe". Or the new "Dallas". I wanted to know what happpened next but now I NEVER WILL. Unless someone makes a comic book sequel like with Angel but I tried to read that and it was stupid.

Tl;Dr - someone post a youtube of Jesus Magic!

[Kizzy]

Serious question, does anyone who follows a religion claim they can safely say they abide by the teachings of said religion?
If you had no idea that we lived in a Christian country could you tell by how we are governed?

I have yet to meet anyone with religious ideals who exhibits any of the virtues that a chosen faith extols.
Conversely I have met people who admit to not following a religion that are tolerant, fair, gracious, generous and kind.

It is this realisation that led me to my belief that our modern religions are fashioned by cherrypicking ancient texts across the globe, where the powers of many prophets can be used to instill both fear and wonder in those who choose to follow their professed teachings.

Therefore I have chosen to follow the 'little voice' conscience, instinct or gut feeling our own inherent internal rudder rather than a mish mash of contrary rules and provisos.
If this at the end of my days proves to be a big mistake I'll gladly admit I'm wrong until then I see no reason to change.