And based on some of the posts that sojourner was pointing to, you are putting down Christians.
I put down 'Christians" every time I use the term in quotation marks. However, Roberto here is not doing anything wrong by pointing out the errors in their doctrines and general reasoning and scriptural exegesis. I point out how illogical the Trinity and anti-Judaism (antinomianism) on numerous posts, all for the purpose of debate. You put down Jesus by saying he wasn't the Jewish Messiah in a similar way, are you not "attacking" Christians in the same way by denying the Christhood of Jesus and saying he's a heretic and that Jews who obey him are apostates and all that? What's the difference in calling a "Messianic Jew" an apostate and "Dissing" "Christians" because of the spurious doctrines and passages they cling to which prevents them from realizing the truth of Christianity's totally Israelite roots?
So, between all of your posts lately, you ended up "dissing" Jews and Christians.
Do I "diss" Judaism by saying that I think the Talmud and that various Rabbinical opinions are wrong? If that counts as "dissing", I guess legitimate debate is all a diss fest. Even if Roberto uses a few extreme examples that don't represent the majority, he is nonetheless presenting the fact that Rabbinical opinion, even if very fringe, is not necessarily all correct, and the issue to decide what is and isn't correct is totally arbitrary and based on majority consensus.
You spend all your time touting what these religions "ought" to be,
What is wrong with having a stance on what a religion should be and what it should not be? That is the very reason why each of us believes the particulars we do assuming we don't do it purely for tradition and social value. To have a problem with the investigation of the roots and origin of a movement and sticking to those roots and origins is in itself trying to say what the religion "o8ught to be". You yourself seem to have a very assertive stance of what "Christianity" Ought to be.
that you fail to fully appreciate what they truly are.
What's wrong with criticizing what many of their manifestations truly "are" and arguing that they "ought" not to be how they are logically through debate?
No organic entity remains the same -- all things change, or they die.
A few posts back you will see that an entire tangent argument was made after me saying that the Talmud was not the original kind of Judaism as practiced by the ancient Israelites. Apparently saying that Judaism has "changed' since the old days hits a nerve to some. But if you apply to this the Nazarene Roots of Chrisitanity, a different standard arises? What's wrong with staying the same? If you change too much you die. The things that last the longest are those that can survive with minimal adaptation. Who decides what should change? The majority of the entire culture at large? Like I said, adultery should be fine in the French church if that's the case.
Religion will surely become insignificant when you place it under glass, as you seem to be doing here.
Maybe religion for the most part SHOULD be insigificant and that's the problem: When they are examined carefully, the false arguements start to expose themselves and logic shifts towards the "ought" is and what the is "ought" to be.