What is wrong with following Christ’s teachings?

[Jabberwocky]

You are aware that the oldest Mss. we possess for the OT are in Greek, right? And that there was essentially no Christian Hebrew scholarship from Jerome until the Renaissance, leading to that whole line of inquiry being dominated by a certain other perspective? Who's rewriting who? I rather doubt that you have taken any Biblical languages to "read the Hebrew or Aramaic text," as if that could be done without historical context now anyway. Hence the need for an authoritative Church to pass down and interpret.

Are the greek manuscripts significantly older than the Dead Sea Scrolls? I thought they were from approximately the same timeframe?

 

[SKL]

Are the greek manuscripts significantly older than the Dead Sea Scrolls? I thought they were from approximately the same timeframe?

Full Bible, I mean. There is a lot in the DSS (including the verse I will discuss shortly) but not that. Codexes B (Vaticanus) and Sinaiticus (א) are both complete or nearly so and are mid-4th century or so.

My larger point is that almost all scholarship for almost a thousand years was on Greek and Latin texts, Hebrew having almost wholly died out amongst Gentiles. As such, it's rather presumptive to accuse Christians of getting it wrong for doctrinal reasons or for the meaning of the texts to drift over time: equally likely (or more likely not equally at all, the balance in question depending on one's perspective) is a scenario in which the Hebrew readings drifted over time amongst Jews to ones which did not favor a Christian exegesis, e.g. does עַלְמָה‎ at Is. 7:14 imply youth only ("young woman", as many Jewish and critically oriented modern versions have it), simply being unmarried ("maiden", much more neutral on the question and least controversial: we never hear of a married one and youth is almost always implied) or is the LXX right in translating (which n.b. was done by Jews and slightly before the Christian era) as παρθένος (virgo/"virgin?")

More importantly than whether the word necessarily implies virginity, was it sufficiently unthinkable that a עַלְמָה‎ would conceive and bear the Messiah by natural means and out of wedlock that it would admit the translation παρθένος by way of equivalence? Or is παρθένος a Christian interpolation that made it's way into every LXX Ms. that we have, and the ancient Jews actually wrote, say, κόρη? We can be sure that παρθένος did always refer to virginity OTOH because of for instance its applications to Athena. The Hebrew corpus is much smaller and we can't be quite so definitive. The Latin has of a certainty always been virgo concipiet et pariet filium, etc. and while Jerome had Hebrew he mostly followed the Gk in his work on the OT which was a revision of older Latin renderings of the LXX.

Not questions with ready answers, either in favor of Christianity or against. Which goes to the larger point: reading the Bible without Church guidance or as a diverging alternative here rabbinical guidance is a fool's errand.

 

[Gormur]

No I'm not a scholar, but I can at least appreciate fine details and original writings or at least as close as we have to them. Who cares if a woman is a maiden or a virgin. Being a virgin has nothing to do with messianic prophecy unless you're a Christian who creates an entirely different religion. That was my point

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

In modern terms maidens and virgins have similar definitions, however in some older culture "maiden" connotes being a slave or servant.

A virgin did not carry this meaning.

Just for clarification ...

 

[SKL]

No I'm not a scholar, but I can at least appreciate fine details and original writings or at least as close as we have to them. Who cares if a woman is a maiden or a virgin. Being a virgin has nothing to do with messianic prophecy unless you're a Christian who creates an entirely different religion. That was my point

No? You think that the promised deliverer for a patriarchal society is going to be a ממזר‎, a bastard? This word that survives in Yiddish as mamzer, which is just like in English, both a descriptor of birth status and a term of abuse. In the Bible it means one born out of wedlock, i.e. one born to an unchaste (בלתי צנוע) woman. Now, "a bastard [ממזר‎] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deut. 23:2) Here, LXX and Jerome have ἐκ πόρνης and de scortu natus, respectively, both meaning "[one born of] a whore," which is exactly how the offspring of an unmarried young woman is going to be looked at in the Jewish culture of the time (or in Orthodox Jewish culture of our time, for that matter.) This is all rather disqualifying for a Messiah. Thus עלמה here has to connote 'virgin,' which it usually but not inherently does (it always denotes an unmarried woman and Scripture does not typically refer to unchaste women in this manner, but see below.)

In modern terms maidens and virgins have similar definitions, however in some older culture "maiden" connotes being a slave or servant.

A virgin did not carry this meaning.

Just for clarification ...

Nope. In Biblical Hebrew, a servant girl is a שפחה, not an עלמה, for example Hagar in Genesis 16. Meanwhile עלמה denotes a young woman of marriageable, child-bearing age who is not married, i.e. "maiden." Whether it necessarily connotes virginity is questionable. The biggest argument directly from the text is that Dinah is called עלמה, "maiden" or "young woman" in Genesis 34, when no longer a virgin. Perhaps not insignificantly, she was only not a virgin due to being raped, and the only time the term is used for a non-virgin—and it is definitely never used to describe a woman who has given birth. But in the context of Messianic prophecy, I submit that it is inconceivable that it refers to a young unmarried woman of questionable virginity. In fairness I will admit that the usual term for a virgin in discussions of matters that explicitly concern sexuality is בתולה (for example in Deut 22) and it is admittedly a difficulty that this word is not used in the prophecy of Isaiah but I would submit that it is not a difficulty that is insurmountable, for the reason mentioned above in particular.

 

[Gormur]

@SKL I'm not sure why you quoted me as you answered your own question in the second paragraph; to @Cheshire_Kat. All I'm going to mention here is that Mary and Joseph lived together so maybe it was emphasized that Mary was of marrying age (though I think that was more like 16 back then), or maybe something else. It doesn't matter to me, no offense

 

[Asante]

Who cares if a woman is a maiden or a virgin.

God.

God Created Man (Adam) then Woman out of Man (Eve) and with the birth of Jesus, Man out of Woman (Mary)

Note that Adam, Eve and Jesus share virgin birth in common.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

It doesn't matter much to me "in belief systems" @Gormur since I am not Christian. However I find "religion" to be an interesting view of any given culture an any given time. My interest is purely speculative and intellectual. So never an argument from me, just discussion.

 

[Asante]

One has to view religions within their beliefs systems. If you compare them though, they differ on things but they have core beliefs that are almost universal.

Quite commonplace is the Divine Instruction to treat others with the same regards you wish to receive for yourself.

 

[Gormur]

Note that Adam, Eve and Jesus share virgin birth in common.

Except Jesus came out of a vagina and the virgin birth idea was probably added later; not to the text but after the events had happened. Being born of a virgin would disqualify Jesus' patrilineal descent from King David anyway so it doesn't make sense unless you look at Roman or Greek polytheism who also had deities with virgin mothers

 

[SKL]

@SKL I'm not sure why you quoted me as you answered your own question in the second paragraph; to @Cheshire_Kat. All I'm going to mention here is that Mary and Joseph lived together so maybe it was emphasized that Mary was of marrying age (though I think that was more like 16 back then), or maybe something else. It doesn't matter to me, no offense

עלמה by definition is an unmarried woman and I got into above (which is why I was quoting you) that an out-of-wedlock conception or birth is an inconceivable reading of the text. In the nativity narratives (Matthew 1, Luke 1-2) Mary is described as having been pledged to marry Joseph, at that point still an עלמה.

Matthew describes how Joseph wanted to λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν (1:19), quietly abrogate the marriage contract (to avoid scandal) once the pregnancy was discovered as he had not had relations with her (πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς, "before they came together," Mt 1:18; Mary says ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω, "I have not known a man," Lk. 1:34.)

The word ἀπολῦσαι, "put away," typically means divorce but the next verse makes clear they were not yet married, so we are talking about him breaking the contract and returning her to her father's house, in great shame, something that would ruin her life and then some. However, the nature of the pregnancy is revealed to Joseph whereupon he takes her as a wife, after conception.

The Isaiah prophecy is then explicitly referenced using the term παρθένος, virgin, following the LXX, as the NT almost invariably does (which makes sense as it is also being written in Greek in an at least quasi-Hellenistic milieu.) The prophecy requires the עלמה/παρθένος to conceive in that state (unmarried or virginal.) If the conception is in the unmarried state, then, eo ipso, it is a case of bastardy and a shame which is not appropriate for the Messiah either as Isaiah would describe Him or as a Christian reading would have it. If it is referring to conception in a state of virginity, that is inherently supernatural. Now, conception in this state is what is specifically remarkable about the sign, which is how it is described: "The LORD Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, etc." (Is. 7:14) This phrasing is almost always used to indicate the supernatural, thus a supernatural birth heralded by signs and wonders as in the nativity narratives.

You could claim that the Gospel narratives are falsely constructed out of whole cloth. There is really no argument to be made against that within the bounds of the discussion we are currently having. But your specific claim earlier was that they are abusing the Hebrew text by way of "eisegesis", reading into the text what is not there but rather what they would like to be there. For the reasons I have described, though, a close but plain reading of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke is entirely compatible with the same type of reading of the Emmanuel prophecy in Isaiah.

Who cares if a woman is a maiden or a virgin.

God.

Certainly Jews (and just about every other society at that point in time and most of history since) put a great deal of value on virginity at the time of marriage as this ensures that a man will be raising his own children. The Deuteronomic law in particular gets into these issues in some detail, occasionally gory detail as in Deut. 22. The virgin birth (and the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, that was untainted by original sin in order to form a perfect "vessel" for Jesus) is important as a supernatural sign of the uniqueness of Jesus but also as a sign that he is not strictly of the lineage of man, tainted by original sin.

God Created Man (Adam) then Woman out of Man (Eve) and with the birth of Jesus, Man out of Woman (Mary)

Note that Adam, Eve and Jesus share virgin birth in common.

There's an interesting point here relating to the narrative of the expulsion from the Garden in Genesis 3: God says He will "put enmity between [the snake's] seed and [Eve's] seed." זרעהּ, seed, means in the more literal sense semen and by extension descendants. It is highly unusual, in fact unique, to use this to describe the descendants of a female. This foreshadows the virgin birth.

Except Jesus came out of a vagina and the virgin birth idea was probably added later; not to the text but after the events had happened.

Evidence for this?

Being born of a virgin would disqualify Jesus' patrilineal descent from King David anyway so it doesn't make sense

You're too cute by half here. Joseph was his legal father, otherwise the genealogy wouldn't have been put in Matthew (Luke traces the genealogy through Mary, who was also of Davidic blood.) The virgin birth being a unique phenomenon in history, who is to say that for the purposes of fulfilling the need for Davidic descent is not fulfilled by one or both of these?

unless you look at Roman or Greek polytheism who also had deities with virgin mothers

Some sources have Romulus and Remus as having been conceived by a vestal virgin, for instance, but it is more likely that they imply her actually coupling with Mars. There is the case of Attis, who even more troublingly has some sources saying he was born on 25 December, killed, and resurrected, has no sources for the same until well after the Christian era and also was conceived by crudely natural means—spent semen of a God falling on her. Also the earliest pagan sources for his story date to an era where Christianity and paganism were in conflict and paganism losing badly.

Very few if any of the ancient myths (a) have sources that predate Christianity and (b) involve birth ex virgo intacta, even if the conception is said to be by miraculous or unusual (other than to put it crudely, penile) means. Looking at the details the supposed cases of pagan virgin births look less and less like that of Christ and more and more like a case of paralellomania.

What's more as to Greco-Roman sources, during and around the time of Julian the Apostate there was a concerted effort to increase the appeal of paganism by aping some aspects Christian belief and practice. Other cultures I am less well versed in but I would be surprised if you could find many parallels that actually stick and are sufficiently ancient.

 

[Gormur]

You're too cute by half here. Joseph was his legal father, otherwise the genealogy wouldn't have been put in Matthew (Luke traces the genealogy through Mary, who was also of Davidic blood.) The virgin birth being a unique phenomenon in history, who is to say that for the purposes of fulfilling the need for Davidic descent is not fulfilled by one or both of these?

According to Jewish law an adopted boy wouldn't be eligible to be king as he still wasn't in line with David as it's patrilineal ancestry. This is one of the requirements for the messiah to fulfill. Mary being descended from David wouldn't matter anyway since Jewish tribal identity is patrilineal. This is how it was back then too

You need miracles and gymnastics to even follow the NT because using simple text and history doesn't work in its favor; or at least some kind of spiritual way of thinking, I guess. At least that's my opinion but I'm not saying I know everything either haha. I wasn't disputing Mary and Joseph or what they did. I think they'd been together for a year before Jesus was born (when they were married and such I'm not sure about and don't know if it was written about anywhere) but like I said I'm not an expert at understanding the NT

 

[SKL]

According to Jewish law an adopted boy wouldn't be eligible to be king as he still wasn't in line with David as it's patrilineal ancestry. This is one of the requirements for the messiah to fulfill. Mary being descended from David wouldn't matter anyway since Jewish tribal identity is patrilineal. This is how it was back then too

This is a very misleading way of putting it. Rather than an adopted boy being "legally ineligible," the Torah simply is entirely silent on the matter of adoption, so there is no law either way. The best we get is that in Genesis 15, before coupling with Hagar and before the miraculous birth of Isaac to Sarah, Abraham says he will make his chief servant his "heir."

Now, arguably, the latter birth took place because an "adopted" heir would not be sufficient to carry on the patriarchal bloodline, but nonetheless Abraham clearly is at that point willing to consider someone other than a blood son as heir.

But entirely regardless of this, there is nothing that says Jesus was "adopted" by Joseph as such: not only was the concept foreign to Jews at the time under their law (but not Roman law, see below), but the situation of Jesus and Joseph was sui generis and by all indications Jesus was treated for earthly purposes as Joseph's son, period.

Furthermore, the whole situation was taking place in the Roman Empire, which did have fully developed adoption laws which did consider an adopted heir just as valid as a blood one—Julius Caesar and Augustus, for instance. Whether this has any bearing on the question is debatable as halakhic law is not Roman law but worth considering given the universality of the Gospel message and many of it's readers being Roman subjects who would have this conception of adoption, perhaps even if they were ordinary Jews in the province of Judea.

But even still, analogies to adoption as such fall short when considering the relationship between Jesus and his earthly father.

You need miracles and gymnastics to even follow the NT because using simple text and history doesn't work in its favor; or at least some kind of spiritual way of thinking, I guess.

Well, obviously you need miracles and a spiritual way of thinking. A simple reading of the text contains both. Accepting the background, though, not as many "gymnastics" are required as you might think. On the other hand, you seem willing to seize on anything to criticize. Your reading of a natural birth, especially an out-of-wedlock one, into the Emmanuel prophecy and the Gospel account of its fulfillment, would strike a 1st century reader as strained.

Your analogy of Joseph's "earthly fatherhood" to adoption is an attempt to draw parallels that are not only culturally out of place but have no basis in the text and attempt to connect modern day and naturalistic explanations to questions which are inherently ancient and spiritual in their nature.

If we are accepting the idea of a supernaturally prophesized Messiah, we are already bringing the supernatural into the equation, so it is not out of place to use an exegesis that includes supernatural events with consequences that exceed ordinary constraints.

I think they'd been together for a year before Jesus was born (when they were married and such I'm not sure about and don't know if it was written about anywhere)

The marriage occurred after the Annunciation and conception. Perhaps even after she was showing, depending on how you read things and whether Mary went directly to Joseph and told him about it or waited. So they were married at the very most a little more than 9 months, perhaps significantly less.

but like I said I'm not an expert at understanding the NT

 

[Gormur]

This is a very misleading way of putting it. Rather than an adopted boy being "legally ineligible," the Torah simply is entirely silent on the matter of adoption, so there is no law either way.

There was adoption back then but I'd have to look it up. EDIT: Indeed it wasn't legal adoption, so you're right. Still Judaism doesn't recognize adoptees as blood relatives

The best we get is that in Genesis 15, before coupling with Hagar and before the miraculous birth of Isaac to Sarah, Abraham says he will make his chief servant his "heir."

I guess

Now, arguably, the latter birth took place because an "adopted" heir would not be sufficient to carry on the patriarchal bloodline, but nonetheless Abraham clearly is at that point willing to consider someone other than a blood son as heir.

Good question. I'm not sure about that either. Maybe I'll do some research

But entirely regardless of this, there is nothing that says Jesus was "adopted" by Joseph as such: not only was the concept foreign to Jews at the time under their law (but not Roman law, see below), but the situation of Jesus and Joseph was sui generis and by all indications Jesus was treated for earthly purposes as Joseph's son, period.

Of course

Furthermore, the whole situation was taking place in the Roman Empire, which did have fully developed adoption laws which did consider an adopted heir just as valid as a blood one—Julius Caesar and Augustus, for instance. Whether this has any bearing on the question is debatable as halakhic law is not Roman law but worth considering given the universality of the Gospel message and many of it's readers being Roman subjects who would have this conception of adoption, perhaps even if they were ordinary Jews in the province of Judea.

Interesting, I didn't know that

But even still, analogies to adoption as such fall short when considering the relationship between Jesue and his earthly father.

Well, obviously you need miracles and a spiritual way of thinking. A simple reading of the text contains both. Accepting the background, though, not as many "gymnastics" are required as you might think.

Well I'm interested in the history for sure. My issue is with people who try to change the text (not you, obviously) or take it out of context

On the other hand, you seem willing to seize on anything to criticize.

Sure

Your reading of a natural birth, especially an out-of-wedlock one, into the Emmanuel prophecy and the Gospel account of its fulfillment, would strike a 1st century reader as strained.

It's that I don't believe in miracle births. I didn't say anything about in-wedlock births or about NT prophecy or the Gospels. Sorry if I confused you somewhere

Your analogy of Joseph's "earthly fatherhood" to adoption is an attempt to draw parallels that are not only culturally out of place but have no basis in the text and attempt to connect modern day and naturalistic explanations to questions which are inherently ancient and spiritual in their nature.

I don't know anything about NT Joseph's lineage. If you do, I'd like to know more though

If we are accepting the idea of a supernaturally prophesized Messiah, we are already bringing the supernatural into the equation, so it is not out of place to use an exegesis that includes supernatural events with consequences that exceed ordinary constraints.

I'm only interested in fulfilling Jewish prophecies and the (Jewish) messiah is supposed to be a human, not a superman. But I agree that having faith that a person will come and save the world is a special belief

The marriage occurred after the Annunciation and conception. Perhaps even after she was showing, depending on how you read things and whether Mary went directly to Joseph and told him about it or waited. So they were married at the very most a little more than 9 months, perhaps significantly less.

I've heard this as well

 

[SKL]

I don't know anything about NT Joseph's lineage. If you do, I'd like to know more though

We don't know much about Joseph, but here is some of what we do: His genealogy, such as it is, is in Matthew 1. He was a carpenter, of Davidic lineage and likely from a well-respected family, he was pious, probably significantly older than Mary. Some hold that he was a widower and had sons from a prior marriage, thus the reference to Jesus's brothers not suggesting that Mary eventually had children the normal way (others hold that these were cousins, not brothers, which is a possible reading of the text.) All traditional Christian interpretations hold that the marriage was never consummated. Joseph does not seem to be very well-off (hence the manger) but neither is he destitute, he seems able to move his family about (from Nazareth to Egypt to Galilee) without much difficulty, which would require pack animals, etc. and also he was making enough money to be taxed (if he was a pauper the Roman State would not have bothered.)

He might have had a workshop with a number of people working under him or he might have been a self-employed craftsman, it's not terribly clear. He seemed to be calm, reserved, and have a deep decency about him, as evidenced by his wanting to end things quietly with Mary, rather than humiliate her, before he understood the nature of her pregnancy. He doesn't appear much in the Gospels, however he was clearly involved in Jesus' life and considered his earthly father as later on during Jesus' ministry people who scoff at him mention his being the son of the carpenter. However not much is said about him, probably because the writers want to keep the focus on Jesus and Mary to emphasize the special status of both.

There are post-Biblical traditions about Joseph but the above is about what we have and can all agree on and does give a basic sketch of some of his qualities, and a good set of qualities they are.

I'm only interested in fulfilling Jewish prophecies and the (Jewish) messiah is supposed to be a human, not a superman.

The best OT passage implying a Divine messiah is probably Isaiah 9:6-7, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God. The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." Some translate this in various tortured ways ("counsellor [of] the mighty God [who, i.e. God, is] the everlasting Father") but doing so is a big stretch.

Anyway, to break it down: particularly interesting of course is אל גבור, "mighty God" and אבי עד, "eternal Father."

גבור is applied as the adjective "mighty" throughout the OT both to men and to God. From אל derives the plural אלהים,‎ a more commonly used title for God in the OT. (Why is the title usually plural, but singular in this particular case? Is this a hint of the trinity? Or is reading that in a stretch?) Now, אל is occasionally used in curious ways to refer to divine power, to false idols, etc. but here it is in rather stark and plain terms: "the mighty God."

עד, "eternal, everlasting", if I am not mistaken is only used in reference to God in the OT. A particularly interesting verse is is Isaiah 57:15, "thus saith the High and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, who's name is Holy." In a similar vein, verse 7 as above, "the increase of his government shall have no end [אין־קץ] ... forth and evermore [ועד עולם]." Pedantically, the former phrase means that there is no point in time at which the power of the Messiah shall come to an end, while the latter specifically refers to a more theological concept of Eternity. The word עולם will be familiar to any observant Jew as it is in the preface of many of his prayers addressing God: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, etc." "Universe" here is עולם. We have both a spatial and a temporal sort of all-encompassing vastness described here.

Bottom line, we have four very theological terms here applied to the Messiah.

There are a variety of oblique references in the OT which can be read as supporting a triune God, in addition to the plural אלהים and God using the first person plural when speaking of creation in the first chapter of Genesis (which according to Christian doctrine was accomplished through and with the pre-existing Son, second person of the trinity) but generally using the first person singular when speaking to Israel as God the Father. There are some verses which seem to be rather confusing but are somewhat less so if you see more than one person of the Trinity in them, but I am tired and going to leave it here for now. If you are interested I can pick up on this thread another time.

 

[bongdong]

You are all wrong, I tell you, the eggs of the Easter bunny are green, and not yellow! And surely he is a virgin (คนโกหก) when he lays his eggs in secret. If you don't believe what I do, you all can fuck right off, because my book is factual (it says so in 66:3-9, เรื่อง ตลก), and I'm certain I know how to read and interpret it, of course. You don't! Let me organize (and institutionalize) the absolute truth for you all.., don't you sinners wanna be saved and go to eternal bunny heaven?

We should build faith-based communities of true believers, following the ancient dogma of the divine bunny. It will be fun they said. And soo progressive, peaceful and free of conflict that we will hardly be able to handle it.



EDIT: Or.., you need to take exactly XY mg of substance Z, then ...and only then, will you know God, the absolute truth (which coincidentally happens to be my personal psychosis I drugged myself into). That's one of my favorites too..

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

There's nothing wrong with following the way of our lord and savior Jesus H. Christ... as long as you admit that he's not real...that is to say imaginary...in the biblical sense.

Not trying to be a dick... I respect the "life he lived" and often model my own after it. But all the testament and church's production of him is dishonest, inaccurate at best, and based in replicating power structures that are diametrically opposed to the true spirit of Jesus the person (as he lived his life.

Also, idk why, but my neighbors ox is like way better than mine. I mean, my ox is 13 years old, and can hardly pull himself around the property, but my neighbor's ox is like pure muscle, 3 years young, and I'm just so darn jealous. I know that if I try to steal his ox in the middle of the night and he catches me before sunrise... he can murder me with a blunt staff and god will be fine with it.

Thow shall not murder! Unless you're stealing my ox... then murder is totally acceptable. Is this making any sense?

 

[Xorkoth]

Just a reminder, this is a serious thread so let's keep the joking posting out of here so as to respect the seriousness of the conversation for many people. No worries, just wanted to gently steer the conversation away from pokes that might offend or derail.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

Sorry. Won't happen again. I meant no disrespect.

 

[Snafu in the Void]

I will proudly lead an "anti-Christian" campaign, BUT I don't have a problem with people who practice ANY religion. I don't give a shit what people believe in.

I just don't think I need to be seeing "JESUS SAVES" signs on every telephone pole, Christians protesting gay and black people on the street, tax free evangelical frauds who scam billions of money from poor people in the name of God... I could go on

I only have 2 problems with any religion:
1. when they try to force their propaganda on me and or say I'm going to hell for not believing in what they do
2. when they are associated with bigotry or other primitive defunct human behavior

The only problem with any religion is when people misinterpret it to justify their own fucked up backwards beliefs. Doing evil in "the name of God".

If they leave me alone (like 99.9% of Christians do), I don't care at all what they do. I am extremely tolerant - but I do not tolerate bigotry in any form.

Let us not forget the billions of souls tortured, murdered or imprisoned in the name of Christianity or any other religion. Genocide and "manifest destiny". Is evil an inherently human trait?

just my 2 incense