If you miss-attribute the source a problem, how do you solve it?
I've stated that the historical record of the founder of Christianity does not provide cover for those who seek to commit violence or use coercion. Do you have evidence that it does?
If not, then the cited atrocities are best attributable to other causes.
Well, the founder of Christianity didn't disown the God-sanctioned/God-committed mass killings and ethnic cleansings of the First Testament. In addition, the Catholic Church built a solid theological work on the notion of "just war". A religion is largely a matter of interpretation. What matters is not so much the original material as what people make of it.
Re:The Other France
by nightspirit on Saturday November 14, 2015 @07:58PM
(#10568022)
Well, the Catholic Church for centuries was a serious part of European political machinery and our politics weren't always peaceful.
One could argue that nowadays some religions play similar role, btw.
I think a large part of the issue is that the Church's original pacifism is not a viable strategy for a state religion. Pacifism worked for Gandi, but against Visigoths or Mongols? Not a chance. So the Church had to shift doctrines (again showing that you can find what you're looking for in the Scriptures if you look hard enough) to "win the race", so to say.
> If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder.
Who gives a damn? Most religions are full of contradictions, you pick the bits you like the most. "Non-violent" Christianity was behind major milestones of human progress such as the Crusades, the repression of the Cathars and Albigeois "heresies" (who do you think came up with "let God sort them out"?), the Spanish Inquisition...