Who would Jesus have voted for in the presidential elections?

[Sibboleth]

It's pretty silly to speculate how someone who lived almost two thousand years before modern democracy would vote.

[War on Want]

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

I'm not sure how that has any bearing on Jesus's morality, or lack thereof.

He didn't say that Christians had installed some sort of draconian regime; he said that their founder was immoral.  While I'd be interesting to hear him support his claim, what you're talking about is totally unrelated.

Well all that I meant was that even if he thinks Jesus is immoral, he shouldn't badmouth him so much, as without him there wouldn't be Christians, and maybe not Democracy in the modern sense of it.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Well all that I meant was that even if he thinks Jesus is immoral, he shouldn't badmouth him so much, as without him there wouldn't be Christians, and maybe not Democracy in the modern sense of it.

Perhaps you're right on the democracy part, but you're being needlessly reactionary.

I don't see anything wrong with bad-mouthing the means, even if they result in ends that you don't mind so much.

But whether or not what you say is true, his original assertion (Jesus was immoral) is unaffected.  It's not as if he's forced to be pragmatic here; he can't alter world history, so what pragmatic negative is "bad-mouthing Jesus" going to have?  None.  So he might as well say what he believes.

[bgwah]

lol, the 12 year old Democrats strike again!

[Ebowed]

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

I have a life.

Without Jesus, America would probably be ruled by.. actually, that's sort of a stupid speculation, isn't it?  Christianity is just another religion.  I'm sure it made many positive contributions to the philosophies of many Americans who were heroes in many different ways.  I'm not going to give your religion credit for the founding of the nation, though.  Not every founding father was a Christian anyway.

What I don't understand is why I can't say that Jesus was immoral without being told to get a life, but you, an adherent of Jesus, can call me an asshole because I have a different viewpoint than you do.  Christians call atheists immoral all the time.  They seem to think it is inherent within our very framework.  I don't think Christians are immoral.  Some are, certainly.  My contention is that Jesus himself was immoral.  If you want my reasons, I'm happy to give them to you.  But I also know that I'm not going to be able to convince you because you hate the very idea that someone could reject your God.

And, for the record, I respect your rights as much as anyone else's.

[War on Want]

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

I have a life.

Without Jesus, America would probably be ruled by.. actually, that's sort of a stupid speculation, isn't it?  Christianity is just another religion.  I'm sure it made many positive contributions to the philosophies of many Americans who were heroes in many different ways.  I'm not going to give your religion credit for the founding of the nation, though.  Not every founding father was a Christian anyway.

What I don't understand is why I can't say that Jesus was immoral without being told to get a life, but you, an adherent of Jesus, can call me an asshole because I have a different viewpoint than you do.  Christians call atheists immoral all the time.  They seem to think it is inherent within our very framework.  I don't think Christians are immoral.  Some are, certainly.  My contention is that Jesus himself was immoral.  If you want my reasons, I'm happy to give them to you.  But I also know that I'm not going to be able to convince you because you hate the very idea that someone could reject your God.

And, for the record, I respect your rights as much as anyone else's.

Explain to me about why Jesus is immoral.

Oh yeah sorry about calling you an asshole. That was uncalled for.

[Χahar]

lol, the 12 year old Democrats strike again!

Whoa. We're 13.

[War on Want]

Why do you hate Jesus?

Because he was immoral.

I don't believe in human sacrifice and I refuse to accept them, frankly.

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

Sigh...without Jesus, Christianity would still be the major religion in the West...the religion came straight out of the imagination of Saul of Tarsus.  Do you really think St. Paul would have let a little thing like whether or not there was a Yeshua ben Yosef in 1st century Galilee affect his plans?

Even without that, the classical pagan world was far more tolerant of variety in religious practices, foreign deities, and synthesis than monotheism has ever been.  Worship a god from Egypt (Isis), Phrygia (Cybele), or Persia (Mithra)?  Great, set up a temple to him/her in Rome.  There was no pressure for orthodoxy, no forced conversions, etc.  The Christians, with their absurd insistence on there only being one god, theirs, were the intolerant ones, claiming that the traditional pagan gods (some of whom had been worshipped for millennia!) were either figments of the imagination, or worse, demons.  Give me Julian over Constantine anyday.

Whatever. Mithras was super militarstic, and Juliani was Fascist in his ways of supressing Christianity.

[Ebowed]

Explain to me about why Jesus is immoral.

1. He was, literally, killed in the form of a human sacrifice.  Old Testament Jews regularly sacrificed animals to appease God for their sins.  I find animal sacrifice to be revolting enough, but the idea that we could only gain acceptance from God if a human being (his own son, no less) was sacrificed strikes me as horribly immoral.
2. Jesus affirmed the holiness and correctness of the Old Testament, which is in itself a very immoral piece of literature, in its condoning of animal sacrifice, its treatment of homosexuals, its sanctioning of excessive capital punishment, and genocidal invasions by the Israelites of other people in the same area of the world.
3. Jesus' views on marriage and divorce have caused endless subjugation of women and the continued tolerance of domestic abuse, marital rape, and unequal treatment.  Divorce was outright prohibited in one gospel, while another quoted Jesus as only making an exception for infidelity.  My view of morality dictates that if a person, or both people for that matter, are hopelessly unhappy in a marriage, whether because of abusive treatment or anything else, it is extremely offensive to deny them the right to annulment.

[Sibboleth]

But whether or not what you say is true, his original assertion (Jesus was immoral) is unaffected.  It's not as if he's forced to be pragmatic here; he can't alter world history, so what pragmatic negative is "bad-mouthing Jesus" going to have?  None.  So he might as well say what he believes.

Though he should be aware that a lack of respect for the founding of a belief system* of any sort (religious, political, all the same in this regard) is the same as having no respect for the beliefs of its believers (except in a highly vacuous sense; "I respect your right to believe that" and so on). And if someone has no respect for the beliefs of someone else, why should the second person have any respect for the beliefs of the first?

*As something seperate from any institutions that might go with it. That's actually quite important.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Though he should be aware that a lack of respect for the founding of a belief system* of any sort (religious, political, all the same in this regard) is the same as having no respect for the beliefs of its believers (except in a highly vacuous sense; "I respect your right to believe that" and so on).

I disagree, actually, although that depends on the sense.  There are few things near enough to total evil that I have no respect for them whatsoever.  But my respect for people's beliefs are not necessarily proportional at all to my respect for the beliefs themselves.

And is there a difference between dismissing a belief as absurd (as he is, and as Christians effectively do by denying the realistic possibility of being incorrect) and disrespecting it?  Because dismissiveness and disrespect are different beasts.

[Sibboleth]

I disagree, actually, although that depends on the sense.

If you do not have at least some respect for the founding of a particular belief, then how can you have any respect for the belief? And if you don't have any respect for the belief, how can you have any respect for the believer, beyond mindless platitudes? And if you don't have any respect for the believer, why should you expect them to have any respect for your beliefs?

And this matters because it raises other questions; the motives of a secularist who has no respect for the religious should be questioned just as much as the motives of a political-christian with no respect for the non-religious. But if there is respect (in either case) then there is no real reason to worry.

There are few things near enough to total evil that I have no respect for them whatsoever.  But my respect for people's beliefs are not necessarily proportional at all to my respect for the beliefs themselves.

Proportionality has nothing to do with it.

And is there a difference between dismissing a belief as absurd (as he is, and as Christians effectively do by denying the realistic possibility of being incorrect) and disrespecting it?  Because dismissiveness and disrespect are different beasts.

There is obviously a difference between not having a belief and not respecting the same belief. I've a lot of respect for, by way of example, Islam, but I'm certainly not a Muslim.

[Ebowed]

If you do not have at least some respect for the founding of a particular belief, then how can you have any respect for the belief? 

By being a former Christian.  I understand as well as I can why he says what he does.

I don't think it's inherently disrespectful or offensive to suggest that the founder of a religion was immoral.  Muhammed is accused of being a child molester on a frequent basis, but some of his doctrines may have good in them.  The fact of the matter is that both Christianity and Islam are influenced much more by their adherents than their founders.

[Sibboleth]

I don't think it's inherently disrespectful or offensive to suggest that the founder of a religion was immoral.

Don't be disingenuous. How could it not be?

Muhammed is accused of being a child molester on a frequent basis,

But not by Muslims or people with respect for Islam.

The fact of the matter is that both Christianity and Islam are influenced much more by their adherents than their founders.

That may be true. But it's also irrelevant as far as this is concerned.

[Ebowed]

I don't think it's inherently disrespectful or offensive to suggest that the founder of a religion was immoral.

Don't be disingenuous. How could it not be?

How else am I supposed to make that assertion?  It's not like I'm going after Jesus by making s**t up or whatever.  I'm just using what's written in the Old & New Testaments and my personal interpretation of morality.

[afleitch]

Jesus would spoil his ballot paper.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

If you do not have at least some respect for the founding of a particular belief, then how can you have any respect for the belief? And if you don't have any respect for the belief, how can you have any respect for the believer, beyond mindless platitudes? And if you don't have any respect for the believer, why should you expect them to have any respect for your beliefs?

And this matters because it raises other questions; the motives of a secularist who has no respect for the religious should be questioned just as much as the motives of a political-christian with no respect for the non-religious. But if there is respect (in either case) then there is no real reason to worry.

I don't find "I respect you even though I find what you're saying absurd, and maybe dangerous" to be a "platitude."  I find it to be an important part of a functioning human society.

Proportionality has nothing to do with it.

Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't really make sense as a reply to what I said.

There is obviously a difference between not having a belief and not respecting the same belief. I've a lot of respect for, by way of example, Islam, but I'm certainly not a Muslim.

I suppose this is a difference in "respect," then.

Does belief that something is silly and dangerous, but well-intentioned, entail "respect"?  I don't think so.  Perhaps you need to define "respect."

[12th Doctor]

All of them, if you like.

And I'm referring to the guy from Bethlehem.

Jesus was from Nazareth.

[Sibboleth]

I don't find "I respect you even though I find what you're saying absurd, and maybe dangerous" to be a "platitude."

What is "despite thinking that what you believe in is both stupid and dangerous, I respect you anyway" if it's not a platitude?

Anyway, you've not responded to my main point (or at least the point I was trying to make) here.

[Hashemite]

Why do you hate Jesus?

Because he was immoral.

I don't believe in human sacrifice and I refuse to accept them, frankly.

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

Stop being a fundie hack.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

What is "despite thinking that what you believe in is both stupid and dangerous, I respect you anyway" if it's not a platitude?

An essential part of functioning in human society, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, you've not responded to my main point (or at least the point I was trying to make) here.

Then I've probably missed it (I try not to weasel out of answering to points).  Sorry.  I'd appreciate a restatement or a backquote.

[Sibboleth]

An essential part of functioning in human society, as far as I'm concerned.

You could argue that, yes. And I would actually agree, though only to a very limited extent.

Then I've probably missed it (I try not to weasel out of answering to points).  Sorry.  I'd appreciate a restatement or a backquote.

Basically: lack of respect (no, actually more like active disrespect) towards the founding of a belief system = lack of respect for the believers of that religion, ideology or etc. Two points follow on from this, the first is that if person a actively disrespects the beliefs of person b, then person a has no right to expect person b to respect his beliefs. The second is this:

And this matters because it raises other questions; the motives of a secularist who has no respect for the religious should be questioned just as much as the motives of a political-christian with no respect for the non-religious. But if there is respect (in either case) then there is no real reason to worry.

[I left.]

What kind of question is this?

That dependes entirely on who you ask.

Most religious people tend to think God is on their side, politically.

I'm religious too, by the way, I don't believe Jesus would take a clear political position.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Basically: lack of respect (no, actually more like active disrespect) towards the founding of a belief system = lack of respect for the believers of that religion, ideology or etc. Two points follow on from this, the first is that if person a actively disrespects the beliefs of person b, then person a has no right to expect person b to respect his beliefs. The second is this:

Well, if your very definition entails your conclusion...that's no fun. 

And this matters because it raises other questions; the motives of a secularist who has no respect for the religious should be questioned just as much as the motives of a political-christian with no respect for the non-religious. But if there is respect (in either case) then there is no real reason to worry.

I agree.  Maybe I didn't see that as your over-arching point because it seemed so unobjectionable.  Sorry if I glossed over it because of this.

Here's a question.  Under your construct is it possible for a Christian to respect a non-theist, when faith entails being effectively sure of your moral beliefs?  I don't see how that's any different than the treatment given by atheists to Christians.

Clearly plenty of Christians find my beliefs on certain things to be unquestionably immoral, and by your definition there is an automatic disrespect.

[Χahar]

All of them, if you like.

And I'm referring to the guy from Bethlehem.

Jesus was from Nazareth.

My bad.

What kind of question is this?

That dependes entirely on who you ask.

Most religious people tend to think God is on their side, politically.

I'm religious too, by the way, I don't believe Jesus would take a clear political position.

Well, a lot of people say Jesus (as shown in the Bible) was socialist, which the religious right would heartily disagree with.