Then again, acts of violent - either socially acceptable or otherwise - have proven useful in venting and discarding suppressed frustrations. Psychologically speaking, of course, but suggesting that random acts of violence will ensure rehabilitation of the emotional kind wouldn't be very productive unless the exact issue is thought out carefully.
That is, to say, suggesting religion rather quickly wouldn't do make. Similarly, one may say that suggesting someone to throw buckets of paint on a brick wall to knock it down would be facetious at best.
I have nothing against Jesus or religion - in fact, I am quite a fan of his divine powers to the point where I attempt to turn water into wine every night before bed - but other outlets are available and to quickly throw religion into the fray leaves a bad taste in my mouth; like, say, the taste of week old water.
Why not another religion that isn't so completely mainstream and skewed past the point of recognition compared to its more traditional values?
Like Buddhism!
Buddha's cool!
My point is that why must it be Jesus and not Buddha? Your argument may be something akin to, "I'm not a Buddhist" or other similar statements. But, I'm not a Buddhist as well. In fact, I am an Atheist but I'm not suggesting he follow a similar path in order to find clarity and peace of mind. What may work for millions, or billions, will not work for everyone.
