damn straight

sorry dude ... but your response just typifies the problem.

@kauva I think that's my point. But my response deals fairly with what they teach. You argue that Christ's teaching is about 'love and acceptance' based on your definitions of those terms. The problem I have is that Christian teaching uses different definitions from you, and a reading of the gospels would also render those terms with different definitions from you. Certainly the Greek words behind them do not mean what you posit as their respective meanings (1st-4th C CE Greek is my area of academic expertise). Indeed, the notion that 'love and acceptance' means tolerance of all lifestyles is a recent innovation in Western thought.
Now where I think we probably agree is that Christian teaching leads to a very narrow way of living. In my view, that narrow way has more in keeping with 1st C Jewish mores than anything else and so I don't think one should apply those moral views to our own time.

that was my thought also. people who want to be like christ should stay away from christianity and the buy-bull.

@kauva No I think you will also find that he included, racism, religious bigotry, approval for the old testament laws, approval of slavery, anti investment and short termism, anti-trade, and approval of torture, and the belief in thought crime. Plus I am sure quite a lot of other things, but it is now late at night here so you will have to find them for yourself.

@Fernapple based on what ... that book of lies? anyone who thinks that the buy-bull is anything other than a bunch of man made lies is fooling themselves and/or has failed to study religious history. Athanasius' actions at the 1st and 2nd councils at Nicea illustrate quite dramatically that it is MAN who controlled what was and is in that book. If Jesus did exist then the logical message to derive from the common roots of all the books, even the "lost ones", describing his teaching would be nothing more than love and acceptance. All the other stuff is made by man.

@kauva What do you base your guesses on if not the book of lies ? I do not see that you would logically come to that at all from the book of lies, since the book of lies is he only source we have, you may take any part of the teachings out of it, and say that they are the "true" teachings. As I said, it can not even be regarded it as good evidence that he even existed let alone what he taught, and given the times I strongly suspect that the racism erc. is much more likely to be the teachings of an illiterate self appointed wandering priest.

@Fernapple I disagree with you.

@kauva That's fine, if you are happy cherry picking what you like from very doubtful sources, do so. I have never seen any benefit in it, nor do I regard my wants as a good guide to truth.