...does not detract from the central message. If anything, it strengthens the argument against faith. Now all that is left as a shining example are the Jains.
Funny, also, that he cites Thessalonians and Revelations instead of the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The latter really are quite radical in their thinking, they just lack most of the magic, vengeance, and other negative qualities of the rest of the NT.
I'm sorry, the 'synoptic gospels' are merely repeats, and poorly edited repeats at that, and to claim they 'lack most of the magic', has me gobsmacked. The synoptic gospels contain '
The Magic' relative to the story, the core magical narrative that binds the whole fantasy together. Without the SG's it would be like the Lord of the Rings, without any rings. FYI, the first listing of the Merriam Webster definition of 'synoptic' is:
affording a general view of a whole, the 2nd is: '
manifesting or characterized by comprehensiveness or breadth of view'. It (i.e. the magic, vengeance, and negative qualities) is kind of built into the name, by definition.
I'll also refer him to You Tube, to the Islamic cartoons there that have been dubbed in English. Most of them deal in tolerance, empathy, and conflict resolution. While I won't characterize any of those vengeful desert god religions as peaceful, reasonable people exist within them and try to teach their children humane values.
Some reasonable people can be reasonable and kind, without and/or in the midst of appeals to magic and fantasy. Who knew?