Originally posted by badmedia
You can wave a cross and talk about Jesus and be in favor of war, which goes directly against his teachings. But if you are against the war, then
you are labeled unpatriotic, muslim lover and all sorts of names.
I'm going to have to disagree with that second line there. I have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, including out loud in the real world, that I
am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of this war. There is a difference, to me anyway, between supporting the war and supporting the troops
and I can do one without the other. Not once have I ever been called anything for that statement. I also personally know quite a few Christians who
feel the same way I do about the war and the troops and none of them have been called or labeled anything for it either.
Originally posted by badmedia
I see people arguing over if Jesus was real, and people point out the dogmas, and people point out the bad stuff done in the name of Jesus. But you
never see them do so against the teachings of Jesus. The belief is that if it gets people to do that stuff, it's brainwashing and control.
No better way to deceive people. BUT. As the image was never important, the truth will still make it to people. I have friends and they dislike
Christians and all that. I tell them they are more christian then they realize, and they are for the most part. Not perfect, but who is?
I think that the arguments are more over whether he was real or not than his teachings for a few reasons. First, regardless if he was a real person,
if he was the son of God, or if he even said anything attributed to him, the message is a good one. Most people, Christian or not, agree with what he
said simply because it is a good message that tells us basically to be kind to others and to do to others what we want done to us. The teachings
themselves are something that everyone should be doing anyway, regardless of what religion they identify with.
Second, I think his existence is argued more for the simple fact that there is only sketchy evidence outside of the Bible that a man named Jesus, from
Nazareth, who was put on a cross, ever existed. To me this is no different than arguing for or against the existence of Siddhārtha Gautama. Who may
or may not have been or done what he is said to have been or done, just like Jesus, but who had a very good message, just like Jesus.
And really, it should be the message that is important, not where it came from. If the message is a sound one, which I think few will argue over
either of their teachings as a whole, then the source means nothing to me. Honestly, the teachings of Jesus could have been written in the last 100
years by some guy who was crazy as a loon and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to me. A person doesn't have to be Christian to recognize a
message of kindness and tolerance as being a good thing. It is only when the message is twisted by the followers that I take issue, and it's the same
for many others I think.
The brain washing and control, I think, comes from the rest of the junk involved in most religions not just Christianity. I believe, and I am sure I
am not alone on this one, that it is entirely possible to live by the teachings and not be a follower of the religion. And really, the majority of
people are offended and become angry when they are told by those who really don't follow the religion exactly anyway that they are living their lives
wrong, are guilty of sins they have never committed, and are going to hell for not subscribing to a particular religion.
At the heart of it, most religions are fundamentally the same, so what does it matter what name you choose to call your God. If there is one, I'm
sure he/she/they/it wouldn't give a rats behind what you thought their name was, or if you declared you believe in them, so long as you are a good
person, and treat others well. If that isn't good enough to get me into a heaven that may or may not exist, then I'm pretty sure I don't want to be
there anyway. The persons character should be the important thing, not which prophet they choose to believe.
It has been my experience that those who do not claim to be Christian, and often claim to be of a different religion, are more Christlike than those
who fervently claim they are Christian. Which is part of my above point, doesn't take a Christian to be a good person, and a lot of Christians I
personally know are a lot less Christlike than a lot of atheists and Pagans I know.
Originally posted by undo
in addition, when the original theories upon which atheism was founded, arose, they did so without the benefit of archaeology and assumed their
research was thorough enough to prove their theories, but it didn't work out that way. now they just ignore the implications of archaeology. it's
yet another interesting human foible.
I'm afraid you've lost me here.. Can you please explain what exactly you mean? What implications of archaeology are you speaking of? A bit of
elaboration would be greatly appreciated!