<p>As a follower of Jesus, the only words in the Bible that seem important to me are his; so what Harris asserts is probably going to be of little interest to me.</p>
<p>It seems to me that what the majority of “Christians” and much of what the Bible espouses seems at odds with what Jesus reportedly said. Christianity is a religion invented by Paul, and though he’s an interesting, mostly well-meaning guy in a lot of ways, I think he somewhat garbled the message. And then of course Contantine and others turned it into something totally different.</p>
<p>Which is a shame; there’s a lot of value which is overlooked, or ignored by those with an agenda or just a jaundiced eye.</p>
Was Jesus’ mission to have people believe in ‘Him’, idolize ‘Him’, worship ‘Him’, or was it to have people follow the good messages he was delivering? Ditto with Mohammed - should the Man be worshipped or should the messages he’s delivering be learned and followed? Isn’t a religion heading down the wrong path when it focuses on the messenger rather than the message?</p>
<p>I’m not choosing what parts of Jesus’ message to believe; I’m eschewing the rewrites that started with Paul. I just don’t see it being all about what you think of him, rather than how you live your faith–the more standard interpretation makes him out to be a petty egotist. Which to me, doesn’t jive with his words.</p>
<p>I do respect that many followers of any particular religion are more “orthodox” than some others (orthodox used loosely, to indicate degree of conformity to the official set of teachings & official interpretation of sacred texts). However, not all believers of any particular religion adhere as strictly, and the reasons for that are not necessarily suspect. For example, even devout scripture scholars (of both bibles, “Testaments”) interpret differently from the traditional viewpoint some of the key sayings, passages, associated with that religion’s identity. It’s been said by some, not flippantly, that if Jesus were to return in the flesh today, he would not recognize mainstream Christianity (Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy) as representing his messages. Sincere inquirers can legitimately differ as to the core message and the meanings of the core writings. Religion is not a science, even those religions that claim to follow a methodology.</p>
<p>However, I do agree with your point #1. This is a tired old rationalization for why religion is not just useless, but supposedly evil. No, people (some) are evil. And people who are on a personal or political mission will use whatever message is most persuasive in achieving their personal or political goals. Religion is convenient, for a variety of psychological reasons. Ultimately, the message of all the major faiths is that it is not possible to be within God’s circle of grace/shalom, etc. if you are unable to live with, or at least strive for, harmony with your fellow man. While ancient texts make reference to warring tribes & invoke God’s aid in defeat of the (current) “enemy,” generally the message is not one of belligerence but one of survival. (e.g., the Psalms: smote my enemy before he does me in completely; help me live, so that I may continue to live in your presence and praise you). The ancient jews faced wave upon wave of attempts at their annihilation; there were times even when aggression was seen as a means of group survival. However, even some of these ancient texts are not without controversy.</p>
<p>Again, it’s important not to equate religion with God, or religious leaders with God. And similarly important not to ascribe to religion animate personhood with independent means to operate in the world. Finally, all religions that I know of include dissenters within the ranks, dissenters who are nonetheless believers. An “official stand” of a religion may mean that just the ones in power support the position, not the masses of the faithful.</p>