Sorry, Jill--this comment is going to be off topic, so you won't hurt my feelings if you delete it.

No problem Shades. I never mind when bloggers have kind interactions on my threads. I wouldn't mind hearing the answer to that question myself.

Just as a note about where I stand on things myself, I am not an expert on any subject. The only thing I know more about than any other person is my own life. I cannont and will not ever say anyone is wrong when it comes to religion. I only know what my heart and mind have told me based on what I have experienced in my 35yrs of life.

Leauki--Based on your knowledge on this thread and a couple of others I've read recently, I am curious if you ever formally studied religion/theology. I know you said you've read the Bible and the Koran--but your breadth of knowledge is quite remarkable. I'm very impressed.

I have some formal exposure to Judaism in shul. I might get into more detail in an article on my blog much later. This is not the time.

I have never formally studied theology. I do read a lot. And I think of myself as well-educated in general, not only in religion. You learn a lot when you move from one country to another. It's automatic.

Religion was also a subject in school where I grew up. And I guess I learned a lot there without noticing it. It helped that I learned Latin for eight years. You wouldn't believe what a conservative German Latin teacher teaches you over the years!

I also read many books about libertarianism (doctrine of free will, not the political party) and use every opportunity to discuss religion with people of other faiths (a friend of mine here in Dublin is becoming a Catholic priest at the moment, we have had many good debates).

But, to be honest, I am very often unsure. And I always ask my rabbi or a good friend here in Dublin who actually studied "Hebrew Studies" when I am.

I suppose Liberal Judaism does that to you.

Thanks for the answer Leauki--I'll keep a look out on your blog for more details. Like I said, I'm very impressed by how much you seem to understand the various religions.

BenUser's point stands--it's when you think that your way is the only way that it gets annoying.

Oh, so calling my faith a "myth" is what counts for "tolerance" now? Thanks, shades, for further underscoring my point.

Gid, that is an emotional response. I understand the response but try to take an objective look at what he said.

I DID take an objective look at what he said, Jill. It wasn't simply an emotional response.

You're talking about the difference between a nonChristian and an AntiChristian, and your article is concise and well written. He boldly proclaims his liberal appreciation for our right to believe in our religious faiths by 1) equating them with children's fairy stories; 2) labelling them as myths. To use an analogy, it would be the same as making the statement on abortion (I HAVE made this statement, and everytime I did so, it was DELIBERATELY to provoke a response) that: "I reserve your right to murder your baby". In that statement of "tolerance", I am expressing an entirely INTOLERANT viewpoint to the practice, as is Ben in his similarly backhanded comments. I have read enough of his writing to know that his comparisons were not a mistake, not a misstatement, but that he understands his analogies well enough to have drawn them deliberately.

While Jesus was indeed Jewish, he was not a descendant of David. That was a myth created by Christians to help make their case that Jesus was the messiah.

Has everyone missed this entirely. Here's an interesting thought, that someone who does NOT believe in the virgin birth would use the virgin birth to disprove the claim to Christ being the Messiah.

Things that make you go hmmmm....

Where did you get this info Marcie? Everything I have ever read says that it is doubtful they ever even met.

Actually, it is POSSIBLE that they met, but if they ever did, it was most likely because Paul was a member of a group of religious leaders that was persecuting Christ. But your point stands. He wasn't even remotely part of Christ's "inner circle".

The reading that I have done regarding Paul brings me to agree with BenUser again

I would say yes and no on that. BenUser's statement, while not entirely accurate, DOES sum up the traditional teachings of some sects on the writings of the apostle Paul. But even this is open to heavy debate within the church itself; for as many teachings of Paul as you can find that support the concept of "grace alone", you can find an equal number that support the concept that works must be present in the lives of the believer.

But I would agree Ben is more right than wrong on this point, because the teachings in many "Christian" churches do center FAR more heavily on the writings of Paul than the rest of the bible, or even the New Testament. they are more "Pauline" in nature than "Christian.

He boldly proclaims his liberal appreciation for our right to believe in our religious faiths by 1) equating them with children's fairy stories; 2) labelling them as myths.

I will concede that in point 1) he used Santa and the Tooth fairy in order to be condescending. But I stick to point 2) without faith, christianity is myth. Sorry, but that is a fact.

I do believe that acts such as not allowing people to display the nativity or say "Merry Christmas" without offending are the acts of Antichristians.

Calling someone an idiot or otherwise suggesting they are inferior in any way merely because they are christian is antichristian. Not sharing the faith or debating what's written in the bible is not antichristian.

Calling someone an idiot or otherwise suggesting they are inferior in any way merely because they are christian is antichristian.

And my point is that Ben is implicitly doing just that. While you are correct in saying that without faith, Christianity is a myth (the same could be said of many beliefs held by nonChristians, I might point out), the verbiage of his statement was EXTREMELY condescending. Would it not have been just as fair and reasonable to say "or other BELIEFS"?

Ben's statement made his contempt for believers in Christianity patently clear. He is essentially saying "I support your right to be an idiot", and in doing so, is exhibiting an antiChristian viewpoint.

Gid:

Having read your comment on your other thread I have choosen to erase my initial response to you. That said, I don't really think that I can demonstrate your point about how anti-Christians behave, since I'm actually Christian. I tend to think that my fellow Christians are a little sensitive when their faith is challenged. Obviously, Jill made this point better than I did, but yes, I think for nonChristians belief in the resurrection is a myth--it's like Never, Neverland or make believe.

I am not a big fan of people throwing around the world "tolerance" when they don't seem to be demonstrating an awful lot themselves. You were just as intolerant (in my opinion) of BenUser's views as you think he was of yours. It appears you've had past run ins with him--I have not, so I merely read what he wrote at face value. I did not find it condescending at all.

because the teachings in many "Christian" churches do center FAR more heavily on the writings of Paul than the rest of the bible, or even the New Testament. they are more "Pauline" in nature than "Christian.

Gid this is so true. But these are the same people who seem to run around with the WWJD garb too. Yet they call me the hypocrite which is quite ironic. Jesus' teaching are pretty simple and Paul's are quite complex in his style of writing. It appears to me that man in it's feeble mind has a inferiority complex and tries to understand the complex issues rather than dwelling on what is straightforward and simple. Either that or we take the simple, make it complex and become legalistic.

double post

I am not a big fan of people throwing around the world "tolerance" when they don't seem to be demonstrating an awful lot themselves. You were just as intolerant (in my opinion) of BenUser's views as you think he was of yours.

where is the line between disagreement and intolerance? Is it when you can no longer agree to disagree?