This could just as easily be called The Case For Buddhism, but my main priority is to defend Buddhism on the grounds that it is not a run-of-the-mill religion like Christianity, Islam or even Hinduism (although some aspects of Hinduism demonstrate similar concepts).  The format is going to be as follows:  I will first outline the priorities of Buddhism and what the core nature of the “religion” is; next I will choose select passages of Buddhist scripture which are in support of my point that Buddhism is in alignment with many skeptic’s viewpoints and other passages that mean a lot to me personally; finally I will make my case that Buddhism the religion has drifted from its roots into becoming ingrained in various culture it came into contact with, including the adoption of “rebirth” due to its proximity to Hinduism.

I will begin with the Buddha’s first attempt to embrace all individual’s suffering and thus offer his philosophy as an opportunity for everyone to follow.  The Buddha prescribed a medicine like a doctor would do upon diagnosing an individual with a disease: Buddhism is not something to believe in, but something to do, and freely upon your own will.  He prescribed this “medicine” first at Deer Park near Benares, India; often referred to as “Turning the Wheel of Dhamma”:

This is what I heard.  He was staying at Baranasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana.  He addressed the group of five:

That is what He said.  Inspired, the five delighted in his words.  While he was speaking, the dispassionate, stainless Dhamma eye arose in Kondanna (one of the five ascetics): “Whatever has started can stop.”
*note: there are over 17 versions of this story.

In essence, this is the common prescription among all Buddhisms.  That is: the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.  Now we shall explore these concepts and I shall try to explain the core principles, or philosophy, of that which the “Enlightened One” taught:

In few words, the Four Noble Truths: the Buddha explains that (1) suffering is to be understood, (2) its origins to be let go of, (3) its cessation to be realized and (4) its path to be cultivated; my full interpretation of The Four Noble Truths:

Noble Truth #1:
•  All things are in a state of dissatisfaction, which includes suffering and frustration or in other words anguish.  (i.e. we always worry, struggle to pass hardships, convince ourselves things are not actually how they are, always distracted by thoughts and are preoccupied by something else rather than the present moment)
•  This anguish maintains its power only as long as we allow it to intimidate us.
•  While we all regard this dissatisfaction, or anguish, with a fearful and threatening appearance, the Buddha says “Understand me”: if we try to avoid a powerful wave looming above us on the beach it will send us crashing into the sand; but if we face it head on and dive right into it, we discover only water.

Noble Truth #2:
•  What underlies this anguish is self-centered craving that extends from simple egotism and selfishness to longing for security or fearing rejection from our peers
•  When these feeling arise, we indulge them or deny them; to this, the Buddha says “Let go”
•  Letting go begins with a calm and clear acceptance of what is happening; not a rejection, but allowing it to be itself: a conditional state of mind that once arisen will pass away
•  While desire may be the cause of the first truth, they are not separate things; craving leads to anguish, understanding anguish leads to letting go

Noble Truth #3:
•  By understanding the nature of anguish and then letting go of it, you are led to understand the nature of needless suffering
•  You can glimpse that things don’t need to always be this way: we will all face pain, but whether we suffer is optional
•  When one obtains this state of liberation of letting things pass and releasing oneself from craving and suffering it is know as obtaining Nirvana
•  This is not a state of nothingness, that nothing matters, but it is the end of needless suffering in order to live and cherish every moment of life through to the end and accepting what happens as you go; the Buddha says “Realize me”.

Noble Truth #4:
•  When one obtains Nirvana, one must cultivate the path
•  To cultivate the path, nourishment is required; just as a garden needs to be protected, tended, and cared for, so do ethical integrity, focused awareness and understanding; the Buddha says “Cultivate me”
•  This cultivation is done through the Eightfold Path, expounded upon here:

The Eightfold Path:
1.  Right view as in understanding the Four Noble Truths (“I reached in experience the nirvana which is unborn, unrivalled, secure from attachment, undecaying and unstained. This condition is indeed reached by me which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, tranquil, excellent, beyond the reach of mere logic, subtle, and to be realized only by the wise.”)

2.  Right thought as in your aspiration, commitment, motive, or attitude (don’t set yourself up for disappointment)(“The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows.”)

3.  Right speech as in watch what you say; to observe, learn from and refrain from lies, harsh words, slander, etc (“The tongue like a sharp knife… Kills without drawing blood.”)
4.  Right action as in acting out of love and not causing suffering by our acts for any beings (“Love the whole world as a mother loves her only child.”)

5.  Right work as in avoid bad habits/jobs/hobbies such as dealing arms, slavery, animal slaughtering (hunting for the “fun” of it) (“Fashion your life as a garland of beautiful deeds.”)

6.  Right effort as in get started and keep at it (“Endurance is one of the most difficult disciplines, but it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes.”)

7.  Right concentration as in attentiveness to what’s happening in the now (“As irrigators lead water where they want, as archers make their arrows straight, as carpenters carve wood, the wise shape their minds.”)

8.  Right mindfulness as in an intelligent alertness and willingness to change your mind (“It is certainly hard to change one’s set opinions, but a man should let himself freely test all systems, adopting and rejecting them as he sees fit”)

Thus concludes the first part of my defending Buddhism.  As you can see, Buddhism does not revolve around believing in anything, but is enshrined by a system of living which the Buddha shared with us and offered to us.  Unlike Christianity, Islam or Hinduism the core of Buddhism does not lean completely on one single choice: whether you believe in God, Allah or Brahma.  It’s up to us whether we take heed of the Buddha’s teachings, for, if you haven’t noticed, the Buddha nor Buddhism enforces belief upon individuals, instead he offered it.  Again: what the Buddha taught is not something to believe in but something to do.

For the second part of defending Buddhism I’m going to use scripture which is in direct correspondence to many of the ideals we promote and other scripture which is important to me as an individual.  Unlike the Bible, the Pali Canon isn’t just a mere book, and the first of the three sections takes up 5,500 pages of normal sized text.  Obviously this means I haven’t analyzed the entire Pali Canon. 

I will start off with my personal favorite sutta (discourse), which I call the parable of the arrow.  The Buddha demonstrates an apatheist position, and you will probably notice how I maintain a similar position:

The Buddha was sitting in the park when his disciple Malunkyaputta approached him. Malunkyaputta had recently retired from the world and he was concerned that so many things remained unexplained by the Buddha. Was the world eternal or not eternal? Was the soul different from the body? Did the enlightened exist after death or not? He thought, ‘If the Buddha does not explain these things to me, I will give up this training and return to worldly life’.
Thus, he approached the Buddha with this question, who replied:
  “Suppose, Maunkyaputa, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat him.  The man would say: “I will not let the surgeon pull out the arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me; whether the bow that wounded me was long bow or crossbow; whether the arrow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed.
  All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die.  So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone should say: “I will not lead the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite; whether the soul is the same as or different from the body; whether an awakened one ceases to exist after death or not,” that would still remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die.
  Whether the view is held that the world is eternal or not, Malunkyaputta, there is still birth, old age, death, grief, suffering, sorrow and despair - and these can be destroyed in this life! I have not explained these other things because they are not useful, they are not conducive to tranquility and Nirvana. What I have explained is suffering, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is useful, leading to non-attachment, the absence of passion, perfect knowledge.”
Thus spoke the Buddha, and with joy Malunkyaputta applauded his words.
Translation for those automatically program to initiate “woo meter”: The Buddha is saying that pondering on why we exist is not only a futile question, but irrelevant to living in reality.

One of the more famous passages, and my second favorite, is the Kalama Sutta; I’m going to relay this as a summary from Wikipedia for ease in understanding:

Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry:
The sutta starts off by describing how the Buddha passes through the village of Kesaputta and is greeted by its inhabitants, the Kalamas of the title. They ask for his advice: they say that many wandering holy men and ascetics pass through, expounding their teachings and criticizing that of others. So whose teachings should they follow? He delivers in response a sermon that serves as an entry point to the Buddhadhamma for those unconvinced by mere spectacular revelation.
Discerning Religious Teachings
The Buddha proceeds to list the criteria by which any sensible person can decide which teachings to accept as true. Do not believe religious teachings, he tells the Kalamas, just because they are claimed to be true, or even through the application of various methods or techniques. Direct knowledge grounded in one’s own experience can be called upon. He advises that the words of the wise should be heeded and taken into account. Not, in other words, passive acceptance but, rather, constant questioning and personal testing to identify those truths which you are able to demonstrate to yourself actually reduce your own stress or misery:
  Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
  nor upon tradition,
  nor upon rumor ,
  nor upon what is in a scripture,
  nor upon surmise,
  nor upon an axiom,
  nor upon specious reasoning,
  nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
  nor upon another’s seeming ability,
  nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.”
  Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.’
Thus, the Buddha provides ten specific sources which should not be used to accept a specific teaching as true, without further verification:
1.  Oral history
2.  Traditional
3.  News sources
4.  Scriptures or other official texts
5.  Suppositional reasoning
6.  Philosophical reasoning
7.  Common sense
8.  One’s own opinions
9.  Authorities or experts
10.  One’s own teacher

Buddha’s Argument Against God(s):
Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that,
‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation,’
I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… “Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation?”’
Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’
Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being’s act of creation. A person is a thief… unchaste… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being’s act of creation.’
When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should and shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered and unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests and contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views.  Dear monks:

Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood, truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma (God) one of the unjust among,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Those men are counted pure who only kill
Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will,
These are your savage customs which I hate,
Such as Kamboja (barbarian) hordes might emulate.
If he who kills is counted innocent
And if the victim safe to heaven is sent,
Let Brahmans kill as if all were well
And those who listen to the words they tell.

Fate Is in Your Own Hands
Once upon a time, there was a general who was leading his army into battle against an enemy ten times the size of his own.

“Really?” The general show them the coin—both sides of it were heads.

The Blind Men and the Elephant
A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, “Sir, there are living
here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in
constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and
others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies
with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir,
would you say concerning them?”
The Buddha answered, “Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called
to his servant and said, ‘Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one
place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind… and show them an
elephant.’ ‘Very good, sire,’ replied the servant, and he did as he was
told. He said to the blind men assembled there, ‘Here is an elephant,’ and
to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to
another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the
tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.
“When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them
and said to each, ‘Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me,
what sort of thing is an elephant?’
“There upon the men who were presented with the head answered, ‘Sire, an
elephant is like a pot.’ And the men who had observed the ear replied, ‘An
elephant is like a winnowing basket.’ Those who had been presented with a
tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a
plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back,
a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.
“Then they began to quarrel, shouting, ‘Yes it is!’ ‘No, it is not!’ ‘An
elephant is not that!’ ‘Yes, it’s like that!’ and so on, till they came to
blows over the matter.
“Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene. 
“Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and
unseeing…. In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling,
and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus.”
Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of
uplift,
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.

Anguttara Nikaya, 188-193:
Do not believe in anything simply
because you have heard it.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Miraculous Power
One day the Buddha was waiting by the river bank for a boat to ferry him across the river. An ascetic passed by and proudly showed off his miraculous power, crossing the river back and forth by treading over the water.

The Buddha replied, “Thirty years? Well, I can cross the river using the boat for only one penny!”

This is but a mere glimpse.

My main objection to Buddhism is that it presupposes that human beings, like the Buddha, can reach a stage of “enlightenment” in which they are able to transcend desire, end suffering, and see the world with absolute clarity.

I don’t believe any human being….including the Buddha….can reach such a state. It is a hope, a dream, and an illusion.  I’m not saying the guy is a liar, but, he may have been deluded.  Sort of like Jesus?

IMO, the best we can hope for are for “moments of transendence” and an understanding that our aggessions and fears are a part of out biological inheritance and should not be the basis of our behavior.

I must also point out that Buddhism, as with Christianity, has distorted and corrupted the original teaching of their “founders”, so the Buddhism you are defending is now endorsed by a minority of Buddhists.  Most of them now believe they have “souls” which will be reincarnated.

However, as I’ve said before, Buddhism, even in its revised form, is a very pleasant religion.

saralynn - 06 June 2010 05:27 AM

My main objection to Buddhism is that it presupposes that human beings, like the Buddha, can reach a stage of “enlightenment” in which they are able to transcend desire, end suffering, and see the world with absolute clarity.

I don’t believe any human being….including the Buddha….can reach such a state. It is a hope, a dream, and an illusion.  I’m not saying the guy is a liar, but, he may have been deluded.  Sort of like Jesus?

IMO, the best we can hope for are for “moments of transendence” and an understanding that our aggessions and fears are a part of out biological inheritance and should not be the basis of our behavior.

I must also point out that Buddhism, as with Christianity, has distorted and corrupted the original teaching of their “founders”, so the Buddhism you are defending is now endorsed by a minority of Buddhists.  Most of them now believe they have “souls” which will be reincarnated.

However, as I’ve said before, Buddhism, even in its revised form, is a very pleasant religion.

I just know that I’m happier recognizing and practicing the Four Noble Truths.  My “goal” isn’t enlightenment, rather for me, enlightenment is the path itself.  No one can say what the Buddha said exactly, but I find that when I apply these concepts to my life I’m better off.

JKapp: I just know that I’m happier recognizing and practicing the Four Noble Truths.  My “goal” isn’t enlightenment, rather for me, enlightenment is the path itself.  No one can say what the Buddha said exactly, but I find that when I apply these concepts to my life I’m better off.

I like the “enlightenment is the path itself”....I think Buddha would agree.

I feel the same way about theism.  No one can say if God exists, but, if I act as if he does, I’m better off.

saralynn - 06 June 2010 06:09 AM

JKapp: I just know that I’m happier recognizing and practicing the Four Noble Truths.  My “goal” isn’t enlightenment, rather for me, enlightenment is the path itself.  No one can say what the Buddha said exactly, but I find that when I apply these concepts to my life I’m better off.

I like the “enlightenment is the path itself”....I think Buddha would agree.

I feel the same way about theism.  No one can say if God exists, but, if I act as if he does, I’m better off.

As long as it is internal and not external belief systems go for it.  Although I think there’s a necessary, albeit major, difference between the path of Buddhism and run-of-the-mill theism.  My brother actually sort of does what you just proposed.  He goes to church, has many friends at my parents church, but he’s a total existentialist and does not believe in the Christian manifestation of God.  People at my church are clueless, and I’ve always wondered how they’d react if they found this out about him.  My church, which is Moravian, and supposed to be the most lenient denomination, recently forced out a pastor who they claimed was a “sheep in wolf’s clothing.”  They believed this was the case because he was a Bruce(Ecurb)-like pastor, who promoted reaching God through actual belief and not delusion (which most people hold).  I think, for whatever reason, there are people who can actually believe in God as a fact, such as this pastor and Bruce, and then there are those who just believe in belief.  You seem to be neither of those, but someone like myself.  I tried so hard to believe in God because I was convinced it would make me feel better.  As a lonely individual, the prospect of an entity who would love you for eternity was delightful.  Through numerous attempts and methods did I try to believe in God but to no avail.  When I was introduced to Buddhism those wishes faded away, because I found that in my search for trying to believe I was making myself worse off than if I lived life without the tireless effort of trying to believe.  I was trying to incorporate a belief and come to terms to that belief as truth when doing so wasn’t a part of who I am.  I was trying to be someone who I wasn’t by aimlessly wasting my life, which is never preferable.  Buddhism on the other hand isn’t something to aim for, because, as I said, Buddhism is the path.  In Christianity, you don’t necessarily have to believe in God, but you can easily respect the core component of the religion: Jesus.  You can admire this guy just as you’d admire someone in a great book (for example: I admire the protagonist of Ellison’s Invisible Man to a great extent).  Take another look at my bottom quote.  When I searched for God I was content on just finding a specific path with a specific God.  Instead, I was not forming my own basis, or philosophy, for life despite the fact that everyone is different.  Do what works for you, and to do so, it requires you to form your own philosophy of life and not adhere to some unbendable, pointed, specific guidebook.

I’ll have to say, I don’t know much about the religion. However, when in Louisiana, where I was born, I had many Muslim and Buddhist friends, and it wasn’t (like saralynn said) just about the path to enlightenment. There were a lot of additional things added to it that resembled Hindi beliefs(which is to be expected with it’s history). The problem I have, and it’s not my original idea, I read it some where and edited it a bit, that a religion that persues an inner truth is only good for the individual. It, like all religioins, assumes and doesn’t not search for otehr options. On a group level it doesn’t encourage science. Though a vast improvement to most religions (only the original way Buddha wanted it), it’s still impractical. It, I think, could make an affective system in theory, but I’m not so sure about in practice. (I have to add though, the nicest religious people I’ve ever met were not Christian at ALL, but Buddhist).

JKapp: As a lonely individual, the prospect of an entity who would love you for eternity was delightful.  Through numerous attempts and methods did I try to believe in God but to no avail.

Well, my faith….when I have it…. doesn’t demand personal immortality.  In fact, that sounds rather tiresome.  My faith is more like…”What the f***, maybe it all makes sense at some level I can’t understand;  I might as well live “as if” God existed since it makes me so much happier.  Of course, since I’m making this leap, and it’s very personal,  I have the privilege of defining God on my own terms, and I have chosen “love and wisdom” as my guiding light, which, if the Quakers are right, IS God .
I don’t think this God of mine loves me, in particular, but, some mystics claim otherwise, so I may be wrong.

Whitman: The problem I have, and it’s not my original idea, I read it some where and edited it a bit, that a religion that persues an inner truth is only good for the individual.

Buddhism is very concerned about not causing suffering to any sentient being, so I think it serves mankind admirably.  They are all about cultivating compassion, etc.  I don’t think they tend toward activism, like the Christians, but, they certainly express concern for the fellow human beings and offer help when needed. They aren’t usually inclined to go trapsing into other countries to “spread the word’
As for the sciences, etc. I see no reason why being a Buddhist would prevent one from exploring the outside world with as much diligence as a Christian or an Atheist.  As a matter of fact, I think Robert Oppenheimer was very interested in Hinduism.

saralynn - 06 June 2010 09:29 AM

JKapp: As a lonely individual, the prospect of an entity who would love you for eternity was delightful.  Through numerous attempts and methods did I try to believe in God but to no avail.

Well, my faith….when I have it…. doesn’t demand personal immortality.  In fact, that sounds rather tiresome.  My faith is more like…”What the f***, maybe it all makes sense at some level I can’t understand;  I might as well live “as if” God existed since it makes me so much happier.  Of course, since I’m making this leap, and it’s very personal,  I have the privilege of defining God on my own terms, and I have chosen “love and wisdom” as my guiding light, which, if the Quakers are right, IS God .
I don’t think this God of mine loves me, in particular, but, some mystics claim otherwise, so I may be wrong.

Whitman: The problem I have, and it’s not my original idea, I read it some where and edited it a bit, that a religion that persues an inner truth is only good for the individual.

Buddhism is very concerned about not causing suffering to any sentient being, so I think it serves mankind admirably.  They are all about cultivating compassion, etc.  I don’t think they tend toward activism, like the Christians, but, they certainly express concern for the fellow human beings and offer help when needed. They aren’t usually inclined to go trapsing into other countries to “spread the word’
As for the sciences, etc. I see no reason why being a Buddhist would prevent one from exploring the outside world with as much diligence as a Christian or an Atheist.  As a matter of fact, I think Robert Oppenheimer was very interested in Hinduism.

But science can only provide a description of the world of illusions, so a true Buddhist-Scientist would be a contradiction.

GAD But science can only provide a description of the world of illusions, so a true Buddhist-Scientist would be a contradiction.

Well, maybe a Buddhist-Scientist could work on providing a description of the world of illusions from 9-5, then flow back into the Universe after dinner.

J Kapp - 04 June 2010 01:06 PM

This could just as easily be called The Case For Buddhism, but my main priority is to defend Buddhism on the grounds that it is not a run-of-the-mill religion like Christianity, Islam or even Hinduism (although some aspects of Hinduism demonstrate similar concepts). 

Preaching.

Ecurb Noselrub - 06 June 2010 02:58 PM

J Kapp - 04 June 2010 01:06 PM

This could just as easily be called The Case For Buddhism, but my main priority is to defend Buddhism on the grounds that it is not a run-of-the-mill religion like Christianity, Islam or even Hinduism (although some aspects of Hinduism demonstrate similar concepts). 

Preaching.

Never heard of a Buddhist preacher. 

The Buddhist motto: Do not convert but contribute.

You made your case for being a Christian on numerous occasions; am I not provided that same liberty?  To expound the doctrine I follow? And make my case for Buddha as you do for Jesus?

J Kapp - 06 June 2010 03:56 PM

Ecurb Noselrub - 06 June 2010 02:58 PM

J Kapp - 04 June 2010 01:06 PM

This could just as easily be called The Case For Buddhism, but my main priority is to defend Buddhism on the grounds that it is not a run-of-the-mill religion like Christianity, Islam or even Hinduism (although some aspects of Hinduism demonstrate similar concepts). 

Preaching.

Never heard of a Buddhist preacher. 

The Buddhist motto: Do not convert but contribute.

You made your case for being a Christian on numerous occasions; am I not provided that same liberty?  To expound the doctrine I follow? And make my case for Buddha as you do for Jesus?

Sure. I was just pointing out that you are preaching.  By your own admission, you are expounding a doctrine. That is preaching.

E-curb: Sure. I was just pointing out that you are preaching.  By your own admission, you are expounding a doctrine. That is preaching.

Disagree.  JKapp was just extolling the virtues of Buddhism.  That’s not the same as preaching.  At least I don’t think it is. 

He was neither urging people to become Buddhists, nor was he giving religious or moral advice.

Advocating is not the same as sermonizing.  Maybe “technically”, but, not in the common understanding of the word.

You were being a tad snide, no?

saralynn - 06 June 2010 05:16 PM

E-curb: Sure. I was just pointing out that you are preaching.  By your own admission, you are expounding a doctrine. That is preaching.

Disagree.  JKapp was just extolling the virtues of Buddhism.  That’s not the same as preaching.  At least I don’t think it is.

Sounded like it to me. A Christian preacher extols the virtues of Christianity, etc. 

saralynn - 06 June 2010 05:16 PM

You were being a tad snide, no?

I didn’t think so. I was just pointing out that he was preaching. But some might disagree.

E-curb: I didn’t think so. I was just pointing out that he was preaching. But some might disagree.

I’m one of the some.