[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Because the contradictions that were pointed out specifically about what Jesus said was either not in context, and makes way more sense therein, or are completely up to interpretation, requiring study and debate or don't really matter in the long run. Does the fact that the disciples went to Jerusalem or Galilee to see him after his resurrection completely invalidate the principle of turning the other cheek? Small details get muddled up the longer you wait to write things down. Does it matter if Buddha saw the morning star or not?

1) Then why the hell didn't you argue that in the first place? By all means, if you feel the contradictions in the OP were wrong, tell us why.

2) As I said above, invalidating the authenticity of Jesus's story does not invalidate teachings like "turn the other cheek". It invalidates the idea that he was the divine, and removes the divine mandate on them.

Without divinity attached to them, Jesus's teachings can be approached rationally, and properly cherry-picked for worthy ideas. As long as people think he's the Son of God, it all must be the perfect truth, and it must not be questioned.

That there are many Christians, some known as theologists, who really try to glean what they can from the text, like everyone else with a religion that has a sacred text.

And there are many people that really try to glean what they can from Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings, and Twilight. Does that make them real? The human mind can easily perform the mental gymnastics necessary to read in things that aren't there just as easily.

How? There's a million years between a staunch Catholic and a Universal Unitarian, I don't see how the UU's are answerable for the Pope being a dickhead. Same with Muslims, I'm not going to harass my Sufi neighbour because some mass murdering fuckhead in the middle east wants to kill Westerners.

You do have something of a point here, however, as Kontan pointed out the moderates have a responsibility to actively work to denounce, mock, and stifle the radicals who claim to be of the same faith.

I wouldn't advocate harassing your neighbor because that would be an insane over-reaction. I might, given the proper context, (say a web-based discussion forum) attack the validity of his ideas, and point to said radicals as a reason he might want to re-think the supposedly "peaceful" teachings of his faith.

I'm guessing ten or twenty before the rest of the world moves on and China gets comfy in the superpower seat, but its all speculation. Could happen tomorrow, could happen never. I'm quite frankly expecting to live to see it happen.

Maybe, but consider this: Fox News is coming to Canada, and every insane, ultra-conservative radical is about to have their voice bolstered by one of the most effective propaganda networks the world has ever seen.

This ideology is not one which is just going to be content with America, they are looking to expand into your back yard. Give it a few years, and see if you still think I'm over-reacting about the radicalism in America.

According to very old religious laws, the same that Jesus tend to break. If you follow the lines that Jesus was right, "he who without sin cast the first stone." He broke that line of thinking. It makes perfect sense for cherry-pickers to just view it as a barbaric ancient law for a people who existed thousands of years ago.

Yeah, and he also told his followers to sell/abandon their possessions, leave their friends, families, and jobs, and follow his homeless-ass around the desert. (And also got a handful of the killed) Consider that. I mean you don't believe he was the Son of God, right? So then logically, he was just some guy using his charisma to get people to dedicate their lives to him. Put that in a modern context. How would you react if some hippy-evangelist moved into town and got your brother, or parent, or best friend to give up all their possesions and road trip around the country in their van?

Like it or not, Jesus preached fanaticism. It had a strong strain of feel-good, peace and love fanaticism, but it was fanaticism none the less.

I'd argue that many people need philosophies as a guidance. If it comes from Jesus, Confucius or Plato, what do I care, as long as they are being good?

As I've said, Jesus's philosophy is not like Confucius's or Platos. It is not reason-based and thus is far more dangerous and potentially destructive than Kant or Nietzsche or Plato.

How can I say its wrong, if it inspires them to be better people? I think I'd still be a good person if I wasn't a Buddhist, but I would not be the person I am now, and I'm not sure if I'd be as good as a person or nearly as open minded as I am. Its not a crutch, but the lives, wisdom and teachings of other Buddhists certainly inspire me, as do other people in other religions. But its a hard thing to explain because its so extremely personal, I can't describe what religious experience feels like. And I suspect that other practitioner would argue the same thing. You can study all you want about other religions, but a practitioner of that religion is going to have a far more intimate knowledge of what they follow than you ever can. You can point out inconsistencies in a text, but when faith isn't reliant on a book, is beyond words, you can't break that kind of faith. And if they're not bothering anyone, there's absolutely no point in trying to.

See, right here. Your faith is not based on reason, "it's beyond words". Which is really just another way of saying it's based on emotion. It's an emotion that I can't experience unless I think just like you do, and therefor it cannont be debated on equal terms with an 'outsider'.

Saya, the above is the exact same kind of non-argument that Evangelicals use when they try to tell me that I need to embrace Jesus's love because I simply cannot understand their religion the way they do. Then when I rebut their points they fall back on how It's pointless because I "can't break their faith". What you have said is precisely why religion needs to be made irrelevant, because you're basically saying: "You can't understand me, and you can't argue with me" What does that sound like to you?

As far as "Not bothering anyone" I'm really not that concerned with breaking your faith, or HP's faith, because you're not a threat. As Gothicus pointed out your political allies. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I think your ideas are good, nor will I refrain from challenging you on them, should the opportunity arise.

Mostly this can apply to what I wrote above, the value of religion is too personal for you to vote the church away or shame practitioners. And its not necessary....[Blah blah blah, America]...Again, I'm all for calling out the fanatics, its saying that absolutely everyone must abandon their faith because Jesus could have appeared in Jerusalem or Galilee is absolutely and utterly futile and pointless, not to mention burning a lot of bridges. HP and others like him are on your side, why distance yourself?

See above. I'm not interested in pretending that I agree with someone else's silly ideas out of politeness. That is a disservice to you guys. I'm going to call-out vind for her belief in past-lives, just like I'm going to call out HP for his belief in Yahweh's quazi-mortal avatar wandering around the desert on a mule, healing people with his hands and taking revenge on fig trees.

I don't want to "vote the church away" so stop trying to stuff my argument with straw. I recognize that religion is not the root of humanities current problem, but it is a dead branch that needs to be safely pruned before it falls on someone. I've already pointed out that all the good things you get from religious faith can be found elsewhere, and the problems inherent with giving credence, any credence to that faith, so why cling to it? because right now the only answer you people have come up with is: "It makes me feel good" and that's not good enough.