1) Religion enforces dysfunctional magical thinking: pray and get miracles.

2) Christianity, Paul, encouraged obedience. .. even slavery: "Slaves, obey your masters&quot .

3) Then too, much of Christianity, glamorized and therefore encouraged poverty directly. It was good to be poor, it said, to be free of encumbering "possessions." Being physically poor, it said, was helpful in attaining greater concentration on spirit, and "spirituality."

As has patriotism.

And didn't answer the question.

Feel free to comment again.

But it has some severe, purely internal problems, on its own

Even the central,.internal heart of Guil's typical modernist Christianity - spirituality - does some very bad things. Purely on its own, and largely without much external manipulation.

Deep in the very heart of even " pure" and "authentic," or liberal Christianity, are some very, very evil things. Things so central to Christianity - like "spirituality" - that you can't abandon them, without giving up on any recognizable Christianity, itself.

It's no good blaming the problems with, evils in Christianity, on everyone else. Those problems,.evils, were historically inscribed in the very center of Christianity itself.

You can try to say even then, they were not "real" Christianity. But they were in the Bible. And they are still there in the core of even liberal Christianity.

You might hope some different, liberal "spirituality" could get beyond that. But these are problems at the core of any and all spiritualities. All of which necessarily work against material needs, deeper down. In spite if all good intentions and food kitchens.

Name a belief system that has not been used to justify violence.

People do bad things. It is that basic. Eliminate the people and the problems disappear. But in the actual existing world, people will continue to be a factor.

So I still find no evidence that pacificism has ever been used to foment violence.

Unless you know the person, and can say for certain what was the exact motivation. And if Buddhism counsels a pacifistic approach, how does one reconcile his stated beliefs with his actions?

Everybody interprets their religion for themselves. Isn't that often your point? People use or misuse ideas for all sorts of reasons. While Buddhism general counsels pacifism as part of it's program for alleviating suffering, it also recognizes that individual Buddhists may not take that advice and therefore continue to suffer and cause suffering. Sumarai warriors were also Buddhists and Japanese Buddhism generally supported them in their warrior ways.

But pacifism is a belief system. It is separate from Buddhism, although many Buddhists are pacifists. Many Christians are also pacifists, many are not. Many believe Christianity requires pacifism, while others do not.

So, now that we've clarified that pacifism is own belief system that may or many not intersect with other belief systems, when has pacifism been used as an excuse for violence?

Encompasses pacifism. Some Buddhists are pacifists and some aren’t. There are explicitly militant Buddhist sects. Your assumption was wrong

Fallacy of composition.

Religion is not a good thing, that people somehow pervert. The fundamental core concepts that make up religion, that define it, are flawed.

But we disagree on this.

1) Many have noted so many historical evils in religion, to suggest that it inevitably fails to be good enough. Suggesting some deep, inherent inadequacy within it.

Here and elsewhere, 2) I'm arguing that say, "spirituality" itself, dislike of material "possessions" - part of the very core of proud, "higher" Christianity - is partly evil. In that it glamorizes and thereby encourages material poverty.

And we are talking about opinions, not some historical and provable truth.

And 2) all beliefs are equal. Or their superiority cannot be determined.

This is 3) a modification of a standard liberal Christian sermon. Where no one should " judge" whose religion is correct. Since no one knows for sure; only God or the creator as they say, knows for sure who was day, the true Christian. And he only reveals that on Judgement Day.

To that, 4) some theologian/Jesus historians of my acquaintance, like Dr. Chris Keith, add the closely-related, rather existential philosophy of postmoderist, relativistic scepticism.

Which says that all humans and their ideas are flawed, and subjective. So that everyone's ideas about what is real, or true, are alway uncertain. All our " truths" are just opinions, or allegedly, subjective beliefs. And our" history" amounts to probably, subjective and even false " memory."

But? 5) I am in part a trained academic historian. And? For several years I argued on Keith's and Dr. Le Donne's blog., The Jesus Blog, that his (and in effect, your?) radically subjectivist position is wrong.

The Jesus Blog, like most other Christian blogs, like Dr. Larry Hurtado's similar blog, was in the habit of actively censoring or not publishing most posts that disagreed with it. Though elements of my position can be discerned there, posted under various names, c. 2015-17.

History, on the other hand, meaning what is taught in schools, is generally written by the controlling group in a society, so what is included in the historical record is not literally everything that happened, but what the controlling group wishes to become the historical narrative.



Interpretations of a text contains beliefs and opinions.

But as a sometimes prof. of the history of literature, I don't believe all interpretations of texts are equal. Some students provide good evidence for their readings; others don't. And their grades reflect that.

Please proceed.

Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2018, 07:11 AM - Edit history (2)

In order to be able to say that some original idea or religion was perverted, twisted, mis"used", you have to assume that the original idea, religion, can itself be clearly discerned, and known.

And the RCC sometimes suggests that you are not fully culpable of a misdeed. (like mis-"using" a doctrine?), if you dint know what you were doing.

"Forgive them father; for they know not what they do."

So, by Grace, the Church forgives - and thereby encourages - apparent misdeeds....

Though how can anyone say someone has misused true religion. .. if we can never know what the truth is?