i believe for christians that don't seem to be following what their Jesus taught, that it's best to teach them the things that their Jesus actually taught... like, derrrrrrr
let's face it, a lot of the world seems to be heading towards anarchy, and for fuck sake, there's this great teacher of peace just lying around, called Jesus, which many people "say" they follow, but they don't actually follow what he taught, most of them aren't even close, so let us non-believers *teach* them what their precious Messiah actually taught!!
non-believers are supposed to know the bible better than the believers anyway, right? so tell the believers all the "facts" about the things that JC said to *do*
don't bother with the "facts" of things like The Ark being bullshit (the whole food chain would have stopped for a year) or how we'd all be inbred if we actually came from two people, or point out that Cain needed to wear that mark to warn *other*people* not to kill him; or point out that bit of the bible that calls a thing they *hate* an abomination also just happens to go and call a thing they *like* an abomination as well. eg. if a man lying with a man is an abomination, then so is the USA's national symbol, the eagle. (Leviticus 11:13)
there are a lot of bullshit negative things that can be lifted from the bible to 'validate' people's emotional hatred for other races, for gays, for atheists, for whatever crap they can dream-up out of it, and we know that battling hatred requires much effort, much of which has no actual end result, because you have to go and do it all over again with the same people over and again and again and again and the stubborn mindset of the fanatic believer ends up remaining intact, in fact, they've probably become even *more* stubborn and obstinate in blindly accepting their beliefs because you keeping arguing with them...
"You can't change my mind, I *believe* in Jesus!!"
on the other hand, telling people about the *positive* things that their religion says to do that they aren't doing, means they have to emotionally justify to themselves why they aren't doing all those 'good' things that JC said to do.. ie. give to the poor, help the needy, don't judge, love your neighbour, give your life to avoid sinning, blah blah blah ..
if people want to justify why they are not doing what their precious Messiah said to do, you can then tell them that you don't call yourself a christian for that very reason...
eg. I'm not a christian because;
* "I could never give away all my money to the needy, I *earned* that money, well, a lot of it, but I'm not just going to give it away to somebody I don't even know who probably doesn't even share my values!",
* "if someone hits me then i'm going to hit them back, or at the very least, I'm not going to stand there and let them do it again",
* "if someone judges me then I do not feel in the least bit obligated to refrain from judging them right back in return",
* "if someone tries to kill me then I don't have a problem with doing the same in order to stop them from killing me",
blah blah blah...
Jesus taught that you are to show love and tolerance in *all* of those situations above, so the teachings of Jesus are rather nice, but it's just *too* nice to be practical in a world when many of the christians themselves choose to not follow what JC taught, and yet freely choose to still claim that they are christians, nonetheless.
The nerve of believers telling non-believers to follow Jesus Christ when *they* aren't following him themselves?!?!?
If one can not do the things that Jesus Christ taught, then is it justifiable for one to say that they are "christian", when one knows fully well that they are not being Christ-like at all?
the fanatical christian can justify to you why they use the bible to validate their hatred, "Oh I hate gays because the bible says XYZ in the book of Blah chapter AB, verse RS", that's easy....
but it's a lot harder for them to justify to you why they aren't doing the positive things they are supposed to be doing without first justifying to themselves as to why they can call themselves "christians" when they aren't being even remotely "Christ-like".
The "christian", who merely says that they are christian, can *only* use their selfishness to justify why they don't give every thing they own to the poor; they can only use their need for self preservation to justify why they don't let someone hurt them;
Jesus died on the cross in a selfless act, he did that because he wanted all of his followers to go just as far in order to avoid hurting people, *all* the time. ie. you don't get to take a break from being a christian, not even for a fucking nano-second. This is your chosen full-time calling and to do any less than be willing to die on the cross in order to avoid sinning is to admit that you are a selfish lying piece of shit arsehole that is pretending to be a christian.
And what a fucking joke that is! How else can true peace be achieved if we focus more on ourselves than we do on others? The reason why there is no peace in the world is because christians (and other religions, for that matter) can't be peaceful.
there would be no such thing as "world poverty" if 2 billion christians *actually* gave half their money away to charity, and by the way, JC said to give it 'all' away as far as that bible says...
People just can't give all their stuff away, or rather, they *wont*, as it's just not practical.
so the best way that i believe to "disarm" religion, is to teach religionists the true "spirit" of the meaning of their religion.
so for christians, they should be made aware that when Jesus performed all those miracles for the sick, injured, dying and dead, he didn't just do that to be "nice" by using his god "powers" to help others, rather, he did that to prove that when it came to being tortured and nailed up onto the cross, the miracles were proof that no matter what, he wouldn't use his "powers" for bad, because he would have had to have hurt somebody in order to prevent them from putting him up on the cross.
So, in fact, dying on the cross wasn't some thing that Jesus went through to somehow make people "forgiven", it was actually how far he wanted his followers to go as well in order to avoid "sinning".
Dying on the cross was exactly what Jesus wanted his followers to also do, should it come to that. So in actual fact, dying on the cross for you sins, was meant to be a reference to the christian follower dying on the cross to save you from *your* sins which you would no doubt commit if you tried to stop yourself from being nailed up on a cross.
Don't believe me? Well, if I'm right, we can talk about it in hell for all eternity.
speak to children on their emotional level, not on *your* intellectual level, a logical and rational argument may seem like the right thing to do, but when dealing with illogical things like emotional biases, logic just isn't as useful as you would hope it to be.