Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but if they believe in Magic Six-Day Creation Yahweh, they must be taken seriously.

I've been giving further thought to this post of yours.

The reason, alluded to in my prior response, that I wouldn't be teasing is because belief in these 3 things in particular suggest that person might actually be a potential danger to me.

I would be taking the PERSON seriously, not necessarily his or her belief.
The potential danger the PERSON poses to me is what is no laughing matter.

I don't know how politically incorrect we're allowed to be on this forum; I would point to 911 as an illustration of how belief translated into action by people, regardless of whether the belief is valid or not, can lead to some very serious consequences indeed ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1) "God". Not "magic".

[list]mag·ic
ˈmajik/Submit
noun
1.
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.[/list]

No, magic.

2) What kind of mindset is required to take the Big Bang theory seriously?p

For one, the Big Bang theory isn't an absolute; it's a put-forth theory based on available empirical evidence and subject to change. The difference between Creationism and proponents of BBT is that the latter are open to change and don't assume they have all the facts or that their facts are immutable. So don't bring this up in an attempt to change the parameters of the argument. BBT is not be held up as a paragon of truth by anyone.

For another, Creationism requires the mindset that "Hey, back in the mythic times, when God decided to actually do stuff, magic happened and he made all this magical stuff happen, etc. and I believe it because the Bible tells me so and I believe in it". There's a fundamental difference of "I can't prove any of this, but I believe in it anyway and I am unwilling to reconsider my viewpoints" that Creationism has which BBT lacks.

Speaking honestly, no I would not tease an adult for believing in any of those things.

To their face? Perhaps not. Maybe you are too polite. But the point is you wouldn't recognize their beliefs as having the same legitimacy as Christianity, would you? If they told you you should leave cookies out for Santa or risk coal in your stockings, would you smile and snicker when they leave or would you very seriously nod and follow their tradition out of respect? Again, these are adults here, not kids.

One, I would not believe THEY really believed in those 3 things.
I would think they were teasing.

The assumption here is that they do. If you refuse to follow the assumption, you can't see the reasoning behind the comparison. You can replace "Santa", "Easter Bunny" etc. with Flying Spaghetti Monster, Wookiee Jesus, or Xvim the Invader from Mars.

Two, if they DID convince me they actually believed in those things, I would be concerned at that point if those were the ONLY ... unorthodox ... thoughts they held, but were otherwise stable and conventionally nonagressive ...

You dodged the question. I asked if you would take them as seriously as you would Christianity. Whether or not they are mentally stable or conventionally unaggressive are goalposts you are moving on your own. Your answer already tells me that you would be "concerned", which requires some re-evaluation.

No, definitely don't think I would be teasing at the point I realized they were serious about one or all of THOSE 3 things ...

Missing the forest for the trees.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've been giving further thought to this post of yours.

The reason, alluded to in my prior response, that I wouldn't be teasing is because belief in these 3 things in particular suggest that person might actually be a potential danger to me.=

This is not a criteria for the thought experiment. You are assuming that this person is deranged because of their beliefs. Why? Why are their beliefs potentially dangerous, but those of a Christian are not?

I would be taking the PERSON seriously, not necessarily his or her belief.
The potential danger the PERSON poses to me is what is no laughing matter.

But I never ever indicated that they were dangerous people. You have injected this assumption in because they believe in imaginary beings that we lie to our children about, but somehow Christianity is being given a pass. Why?

I don't know how politically incorrect we're allowed to be on this forum; I would point to 911 as an illustration of how [b]belief translated into action by people, regardless of whether the belief is valid or not, can lead to some very serious consequences indeed ... [/B]

This is extreme. No one flies planes into buildings over chocolate-giving bunny rabbits or fat elf-slave owners from the North Pole. The point, which you missed miserably, is that all of these beliefs - from Claus to Christ - exist on the same amount of evidence. They have no basis in established fact and cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, they share an equal level of validity.

You have chosen to interpret the non-Christian beliefs as dangerous without giving the same ruling to Christians, which is a baffling kind of selective judgment on your part.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Domestication is the difference.

You surprised me with this response.

I was going to present you the hypothetical:
"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?"

Actually, I'll still do so:

"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?"

Bear in mind, parrots imitate animals in the wild naturally.
How else would people have discovered they could be trained to "talk" were it otherwise?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

a) The bible is not a history book. The bible is a collection of many fiction and nonfiction books of the past.

Which ones are fiction? What's your criteria for making that judgement?
While the Bible may not formally be a history book, it has been found to be historically accurate concerning a number of things mentioned in its pages.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

b) Tomorrow is ... NOT always like today.

d) 65 million years ago dinosaurs all died out, and they would be amazing today.

Tomorrow hasn't gotten here yet.
How do YOU know it's not going to be like today?
😕

A lot of animals became extinct far, far more recently than 65 million years ago.
I was pointing to things observable from writings of the last 300 years, and at least one from within our own lifetimes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

e) There could of also have been dancing unicorns in that past, but I doubt it.

We now know that dinosaurs were covered with feathers. So, a snake with feathers is not absurd.
It is a genetic through back [throwback].
Just like humans with a tale [tail].

e) I've not done enough research to say with authority, but, I seem to remember that the word translated as "unicorn" does not by itself have horse-like qualities.
Much more like a mountain goat, if you're referring to one of the famed Biblical beast of prophecy, i.e. that one with the single horn beating down the ram.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Key word in your phrase "we now know" is NOW.

Whether right or wrong, we did not "know" it before, and, at that time, the proposition of a snake, or even a dinosaur, having feathers, was absolutely, completely absurd.

"Absurdity" often disappears as one learns more about the world, though.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
...You have chosen to interpret the non-Christian beliefs as dangerous without giving the same ruling to Christians, which is a baffling kind of selective judgment on your part.

I sometimes make this same mistake about Christians, but then again I know first hand how evil Christians can be.

The sad part is, good people and Christians are not mutually exclusive. But usually it's the liberal Christians who are the good people. The fundamentalist ones who prefer strict interpretations of the Bible are frightening people, relying on Bronze Age morality to define the modern world.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Big Bang theory isn't an absolute; it's a put-forth theory based on available empirical evidence and subject to change ... BBT is not be held up as a paragon of truth by anyone.

Not so, but thank you for acknowledging as much as you did in your FIRST sentence ...

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

you wouldn't recognize their beliefs as having the same legitimacy as Christianity, would you?

No, I would not.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

If they told you you should leave cookies out for Santa or risk coal in your stockings, would you smile and snicker when they leave or would you very seriously nod and follow their tradition out of respect? Again, these are adults here, not kids.

Only one I could think of that would have done something like that is my grandma. I would have very seriously nodded and followed her tradition out of respect. For her. Not because I believed in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, though.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so, but thank you for acknowledging as much as you did in your FIRST sentence ...

This is hardly revolutionary though. Creationists think that BBT is some rival, when it's not. Scientific method does not allow for absolutes to be claimed without absolute evidence, and thus far none is forth-coming. So we make educated guesses and refine them with research. Which is how reality should be defined. Anyone who claims to have figured out the complexity of reality because of thousands of years of Middle-Eastern mythology has an agenda.

No, I would not.

You dodged the point that you specifically brought up the potential danger they might possess, and even went so far as to make a 9/11 reference over believers of the Easter Bunny, but refused to acknowledge, despite my emphasis on the issue, that the faith-based belief system is equally valid to that of Christianity.

Why?

Only one I could think of that would have done something like that is my grandma. I would have very seriously nodded and followed her tradition out of respect. For her. Not because I believed in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, though.

I'm not interested in your personal sentimental behaviors, which are themselves not rationally defined or defend-able. I'm asking you why Christians are more valid than beliefs in other beings who cannot be accurately measured?

Lucien posted this awhile ago, and I think it deserves a re-mention:

What if you're wrong.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You surprised me with this response.

I was going to present you the hypothetical:
"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking [b]parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?"

Actually, I'll still do so:

"What if the Adam and Eve story had featured a talking parrot instead of a talking snake? Would that change your idea of how fantastic it was?" [/B]

No, the story has many more personifications then just that. Like God walking in the garden. This is a personification of God, but not really God. It is not literal.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Bear in mind, parrots imitate animals in the wild naturally.
How else would people have discovered they could be trained to "talk" were it otherwise?

They also do not really talk. They simply imitate. However, there have been a few genius parrots that after a life time of training have talked. But their intelligence is more akin to the of a child.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Which ones are fiction? What's your criteria for making that judgement?
While the Bible may not formally be a history book, it has been found to be historically accurate concerning a number of things mentioned in its pages.

So is Gone With the Wind. But just because Gone With the Wind is set in a historical accurate setting does not mean that Scarlett O'hara was a real person.

I would never take any of the bible litterally.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Tomorrow hasn't gotten here yet.
How do YOU know it's not going to be like today?
😕

Everything changes. This change maybe very slow at times, but it can also be quick. Tomorrow might appear to be the same as today, but it is not. That is how things get older.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
A lot of animals became extinct far, far more recently than 65 million years ago.
I was pointing to things observable from writings of the last 300 years, and at least one from within our own lifetimes.

Still the same.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
e) I've not done enough research to say with authority, but, I seem to remember that the word translated as "unicorn" does not by itself have horse-like qualities.
Much more like a mountain goat, if you're referring to one of the famed Biblical beast of prophecy, i.e. that one with the single horn beating down the ram.

It is a symbol that most people would Identify as something not real. I could have sued the Easter Bunny, but I like the unicorn better.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Key word in your phrase "we now know" is NOW.

What? Why capitalize now?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Whether right or wrong, we did not "know" it before, and, at that time, the proposition of a snake, or even a dinosaur, having feathers, was absolutely, completely absurd.

I think you misses the point and got sidetracked. If that was my doing, I apologize.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"Absurdity" often disappears as one learns more about the world, though.

Am I a teenager?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

You dodged the question.

Not intentionally.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I asked if you would take them as seriously as you would Christianity.

I would not.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

The point, which you missed miserably, is that all of these beliefs - from Claus to Christ - exist on the same amount of evidence. They have no basis in established fact and cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, they share an equal level of validity.

You have chosen to interpret the non-Christian beliefs as dangerous without giving the same ruling to Christians, which is a baffling kind of selective judgment on your part.

There's a book by Henry Cloud entitled "Integrity".
In it, he outlines that trust in a person is based on our belief in both their character and their competence.
Cloud also asserts that, to test whether a thing is good or not, you should examine the "wake" it leaves behind.

The wake traditionally associated with a religion like Islam ...
well, there's a reason I mentioned 911.

Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.
Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles.
Actually, according to a philosopher like Steven R. Covey, some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society BECAUSE they are in alignment with natural principles.

You can probably guess where I'd put some religions and the subject of your thought experiment based on the above.
I'm out of time today; check this space some time tomorrow or later in the week if you can't guess where I'd place them and why.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Am I a teenager?

How should I know that?

This is effectively the first time I've interacted with you in this forum.

However, unless you are literally more extraordinary than I could ever imagine any human being on Earth ever being EVER
... you do NOT know ALL there is to know about the world.

I'll consider your responses when next I visit.

As I told Moose, I am out of time.

Have a good day, Shakya.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How should I know that?

This is effectively the first time I've interacted with you in this forum.

However, unless you are literally more extraordinary than I could ever imagine any human being on Earth ever being EVER
... you do NOT know ALL there is to know about the world.

I'll consider your responses when next I visit.

As I told Moose, I am out of time.

Have a good day, Shakya.

Wow! So, did you not mean to treat me like a child?

You just told me that I will change my views once I go out and experience the world. Did I get that wrong?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not intentionally.

I take the time to address each of your statements as if they had merit of their own. Return the courtesy.

I would not.

You did not answer the why. This is key to the discussion.

There's a book by Henry Cloud entitled "Integrity".
In it, he outlines that trust in a person is based on our belief in both their character and their competence.
Cloud also asserts that, to test whether a thing is good or not, you should examine the "wake" it leaves behind.

The wake traditionally associated with a religion like Islam ...
well, there's a reason I mentioned 911.

Except this is something of a red herring. The Crusades alone, have had estimates of death counts between 1 and 9 million, and that was single-handedly started by the Christians in an attempt to reclaim what they felt was theirs because of the Bible's claims and the motivations of their leaders.

Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.

But no belief system espoused by religion yields good things in people's lives and benefits society across the board. There is always discrimination, friction between religious ideas and progressive society, and a tribal "us versus them" mentality. In particular, the idea that non-believers are somehow morally bankrupt or defective is almost always a facet of major religions.

Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles.

This is a loaded usage of the term 'natural principles', since these same 'natural principles' are often just religious morals redefined as natural to exclude alternative descriptions of otherwise morally neutral acts. Like you know, being gay. How dare they upset the natural order of things.

Actually, according to a philosopher like Steven R. Covey, some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society BECAUSE they are in alignment with natural principles.

Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?

You can probably guess where I'd put some religions and the subject of your thought experiment based on the above.
I'm out of time today; check this space some time tomorrow or later in the week if you can't guess where I'd place them and why.

I await your well-thought out reply.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I take the time to address each of your statements as if they had merit of their own. Return the courtesy.

I think we're having some language difficulties here.
I've been answering your questions as directly as I know how.

I think the problem is you're expecting a certain form of answer, or want me to give exactly the answer YOU would give,
if you were to pose to yourself your own question, and don't realize it.

Restate your individual questions as a numbered list or something.

I'll see how many I can cover for you.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

You did not answer the [b]why. This is key to the discussion.
[/B]

I DID answer the why, though obviously not in the way you were expecting.

Perhaps the problem is you're treating this as purest abstraction, like a set of "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?" problems.
You're expecting an answer not based on how I would actually behave in real life, even though your surface approach suggests that to be your goal, but how I might behave if I were some sort of PLB:

(excerpted from the book "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?", by William Poundstone)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" ... Many logic puzzles speak of "perfectly logical beings" (PLBs). Examples include the puzzles about the adulterous village or the pirates splitting the gold coins. "Perfectly logical" is a code word, almost, whose meaning is clear to puzzle fans but opaque to everyone else. When you hear a phrase such as this, the puzzle is telling you to forget practically everything you know about human psychology. It means you are supposed to make these assumptions:

♦ PLBs have simple, one-dimensional motivations. The PLB is concerned only with getting the most money, or escaping the demon, or obeying a silly law, etc. Nothing else matters.
As a corollary, PLBs never do favors for "friends." It's every PLB for himself.

♦ PLBs think quickly. The being is promptly aware of the logical consequences of everything. Never does his mind wander, never does he make a mistake, never does he forget.

♦ PLBs understand the psychology (such as it is) of other PLBs and draw precise conclusions about their actions in utter confidence. More than anything else, this is what throws non-puzzle fans.
Human actions are always somewhat uncertain. PLBs' actions never are.
The intended solutions of these puzzles are therefore wildly unrealistic.
They generally take the form of A concluding that B will conclude that C will conclude that D will conclude ... and so on. No way would that work in the real world. Small uncertainties about real people's motivations would bubble up chaotically and render that kind of convoluted reasoning worthless.
But not in these puzzles. You can take this as a hint. When you hear about a perfectly logical being, the solution will almost always involve that being's reasoning about other PLBs (or about yourself, in puzzles that ask "What would you do in this situation?"😉 ..."

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

There's a book by Henry Cloud entitled "Integrity".
In it, he outlines that trust in a person is based on our belief in both their character and their competence.
Cloud also asserts that, to test whether a thing is good or not, you should examine the "wake" it leaves behind.

The wake traditionally associated with a religion like Islam ...
well, there's a reason I mentioned 911.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Except this is something of a red herring. The Crusades alone, have had estimates of death counts between 1 and 9 million, and that was single-handedly started by the Christians in an attempt to reclaim what they felt was theirs because of the Bible's claims and the motivations of their leaders.

If anything, this response of yours is a red herring.

The Crusades were the work of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know the secular world considers Catholicism to be Christianity;
in reality it adheres about as much to what is actually written for Christians to follow as the Islamic faith you're comparing it to.

@bluewaterrider what about my questions that you never answer. Did you answer those in a way I couldn't anticipate?

Can you put the questions and answers together for me? I realize that I can sometimes be really stupid, so a little help would be great.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If anything, this [b]response of yours is a red herring.

The Crusades were the work of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know the secular world considers Catholicism to be Christianity;
in reality it adheres about as much to what is actually written for Christians to follow as the Islamic faith you're comparing it to. [/B]

Your religion needs to take responsibility for its past or you're destined to repeat it.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

But no belief system espoused by religion yields good things in people's lives and benefits society across the board.

Not so. Nor is it true that there is no empirical evidence to support my premise.

Here is the first counterexample that comes to mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172112

But I think we're talking on different levels.

I'm short on time until the beginning of most people's typical workweek (i.e. Monday), so I hope you'll understand that I can only answer piecemeal and at random until then. Have patience.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so. Nor is it true that there is no empirical evidence to support my premise.

Here is the first counterexample that comes to mind:

...

But I think we're talking on different levels.

I'm short on time until the beginning of most people's typical workweek (i.e. Monday), so I hope you'll understand that I can only answer piecemeal and at random until then. Have patience.

Ya, Stealth Moose is a little bit wrong about that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I think we're having some language difficulties here.
I've been answering your questions as directly as I know how.

I don't see how there could be language difficulties when I am proficient with the English tongue and use it daily. Perhaps you have the difficulty here?

I think the problem is you're expecting a certain form of answer, or want me to give exactly the answer YOU would give,
if you were to pose to yourself your own question, and don't realize it.

No, I want you to think outside of your comfort zone. Your answers and positions thus far imply that you can't reason outside of the POV that is sympathetic to Christianity, and furthermore you are unwilling to do so. You've equated faith-based beliefs in beings unable to be empirically verified as potentially dangerous, and brought up some ridiculous 9/11 reference, as if only Muslims are capable of great evil due to faith.

I've asked you many many times WHY and you seem to think that directly answering me is somehow a losing position and you just don't do it.

Restate your individual questions as a numbered list or something.

I'll see how many I can cover for you.

How lazy are you? This thread is barely three pages long. Find them yourself. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed my own readily available posts for your convenience.

I DID answer the why, though obviously not in the way you were expecting.

The only thing you gave me that was a complete thought was someone else's thoughts. And even then, it didn't satisfy the direct question I posed to you.

Perhaps the problem is you're treating this as purest abstraction, like a set of "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?" problems.

I'm expecting you to be real to yourself. It is not a "pure abstraction" to ask you if you give validity to equally verifiable faith-based constructs. The beings I used were pure fantasy, but their ability to be proved was about the same. You're attempting to make this question unrealistic in an attempt to avoid answering the very problem you brought up. Why do you immediately think of danger and 9/11 when someone says "X believes in figure Y", and Y isn't Christ?

Why the double-standard?

You're expecting an answer not based on how [b]I would actually behave in real life, even though your surface approach suggests that to be your goal, but how I might behave if I were some sort of PLB:

(excerpted from the book "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?", by William Poundstone, which is a total waste of time since the question I posed has entirely realistic expectations. Using others to defend your inability to answer direct questions is not a sign of being well-read and educated, but a sign of obfuscating the truth in an attempt to avoid taking personal responsibility for your own thoughts and feelings)[/B]

What rubbish.

The question was simple. At first, you chose to answer it, even if your answer was full of all sorts of side-stepping the comparison of Christianity to the Whatever belief systems I proposed to get you, as an individual, to show to the rest of us what you consider the foundations for a valid belief system. What separates "I believe, therefore respect my beliefs" versus "I believe, because I have proof, and I can show you proof, so respect my beliefs".

You have attempted to spin the question so much Fox News is about to sue to for stealing their method.

Let's review your stance:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've been giving further thought to this post of yours.

The reason, alluded to in my prior response, that I wouldn't be teasing is because belief in these 3 things in particular suggest that person might actually be a potential danger to me.

I would be taking the PERSON seriously, not necessarily his or her belief.
The potential danger the PERSON poses to me is what is no laughing matter.

I don't know how politically incorrect we're allowed to be on this forum; I would point to 911 as an illustration of how [b]belief translated into action by people, regardless of whether the belief is valid or not, can lead to some very serious consequences indeed ... [/B]

Now let's review the question I posed to you that elicited this response:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Yes, some things are hard to believe, but the story of Creation requires a complete "and then magic made it all happen" mindset to be taken seriously. You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but if they believe in Magic Six-Day Creation Yahweh, they must be taken seriously.

You went from "adults who believe in Santa Clause, etc." to "danger, 9/11", from that. What does that tell us about your belief system?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so. Nor is it true that there is no empirical evidence to support my premise.

Here is the first counterexample that comes to mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172112

^This doesn't refute this:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But no belief system espoused by religion yields good things in people's lives and benefits society across the board. There is always discrimination, friction between religious ideas and progressive society, and a tribal "us versus them" mentality. In particular, the idea that non-believers are somehow morally bankrupt or defective is almost always a facet of major religions.

... Even slightly. It doesn't even directly address it. Shaky, shame on you for buying into his rhetoric.

But I think we're talking on different levels.

You're right. You seem to be talking everywhere but at me with all these unrelated sources and non-direct answers and fear-mongering over stealth-extremist Easter Bunny jihadists.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If anything, this [b]response of yours is a red herring.

The Crusades were the work of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know the secular world considers Catholicism to be Christianity;
in reality it adheres about as much to what is actually written for Christians to follow as the Islamic faith you're comparing it to. [/B]

No, I brought it up specifically to showcase that Christians are capable of great evil too, in the name of doctrine and belief. Your 9/11 example is a ridiculously small sample of the second largest religion in the world. It's the kind of "OMG ARABS 911, LETS IGNORE ALL THE CRIMES PERPETUATED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, ARABS ARABS" viewpoint that makes me want to say "Stop watching Fox News".

Also, LOL at Catholics not being Christians. When these acts took place, Catholics were about the only Christians in the world who had any power.

I'm short on time until the beginning of most people's typical workweek (i.e. Monday), so I hope you'll understand that I can only answer piecemeal and at random until then. Have patience.

If you can't define 'natural principles' in your next long-awaited reply, don't bother. You're just wasting my time.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
... Even slightly. It doesn't even directly address it. Shaky, shame on you for buying into his rhetoric...

😱

Not all religions are the same. Buddhism has added great befits to my life and the people around me. I know you were looking at the bigger picture, but I could help but chime in.

Trust me, I am not buying into his rhetoric. However, it would be nice if he would try to answer my questions.