- cross-posted to:
- exchristian@lemmy.one
- cross-posted to:
- exchristian@lemmy.one
You must log in or # to comment.
All religions are shit, some are more shit than others. Just depends on the degree to which they impede human progress by imposing arbitrary rules on their followers, offering a haven for abusers within their leadership structures and interfering with politics in general (but particularly where education policy is concerned). Negative value across the board.
100% agree.
Hijacking the top comment to suggest everyone read the book The Dark Side of Christian History by Ellerbe. It’s really good. It’s super short but does a great job highlighting how at every point in the Church’s history, whenever they had to make a decision, they always followed whichever direction led to more political and social power for the church at the expense of spiritual enlightenment, justice, truth (obviously), or human lives.
I read 1984 at the end of last year and man it’s crazy how much Orwell basically described life under the Church during the Dark/Middle Ages at the height of it’s political power.
Christianity is not inherently better than Islam, it just behaves better nowadays.
And the reason it behaves better is not something inherent to christianity, but because it got dragged, kicking and screaming, into the age of enlightenment and beaten up with education, democratisation and secularisation until it had to bend or break and it’s adherents decided to bent.
Islam is still more radical because it faced less opposition to it’s ideas from within. The islamic world needs it’s own age of enlightenment where radical tensions between religion and an educated public reduce the influence of religion on that public.
And I don’t think this has much to do with Islam being younger. Islamic natural philosophers are behind some of the most important discoveries in the sciences and the Islamic Golden Age ended around 200 years, before the Renaissance even started.
If the Islamic Golden Age had not declined, today Christianity might have been the more radical religion and we might have seen a mostly secularized islamic world. It is mostly through chance that history unfolded differently. And with Project 2025 in the US, we might still see a return to barbarism and departure from secular enlightenment in the most powerfull nation puppeteered by christian extremists.
Removed by mod
It doesn’t behave better. It’s coerced into being less harmful than it used to be, due to its irrelevance in the daily lives of millions of people coming from places with a Christian history, and more secular legal frameworks
Oh absolutely, that’s how i meant it. 100% agree.
Not the OP, but you’re not coming across as adversarial. Those of us who aren’t wedded to an identity over common sense can disagree without feeling attacked. However, I don’t disagree with you. Everything both of you said is true, with your comment making both more true, if that makes sense.
I took my partner to a catholic church to check out the ceremony (she’s from a non-christian country). We’d toured it before because it’s very grand and impressive from an architectural standpoint. I try to view it through her eyes, as though for the first time (I didn’t grow up catholic, but I’d been to many varied-christian masses). What a bizarre ceremony. Any people consider it completely normal. This reflection has nothing to do with the original topic. It’s just something that crossed my mind as I typed this out.
Islam will be much harder to reform because it claims to be THE FINAL revelation. There is no-one allowed to come with new ideas because of that. Add to it the barbaric penalty for leaving the religion and you’ve got a hot mess.
All religions are shit, but Islam is worse at its present state.
I left the church so i could do shit like this tho
Hey, how you doing?
All religions are shit.
What atrocities have mainstream Buddhists participated in? I know there have been Buddhist terror groups but it really doesn’t seem like the norm. Aggressive and greedy people use religion as a tool, some religions are more likely to engage in violence than others though.
I doubt you’ll get a response. You’ve made your position clear in your statement: any actrocities referenced will be declared an act by a terror group outside the norm.
i mean, to some degree, any act of terror can be deemed outside the norm specified. I think realistically. As long as a group has a tangential terror rating lower than the average human populous that’s probably a good thing.
What do you mean, how is that even a position? There have been crusades lead by Christians numerous times though, Islamic conquest, Jewish Zionist terror groups, a lot of history to be referred to, when within Buddhism it is much rarer. One historical tale is of Ashoka, a powerful emperor in the Indian subcontinent who supposedly after converting to Buddhism spent most of his efforts spreading teachings about kindness and non-violence. Buddhist principles of harmony and non-violence helped unite Japan, bringing about relative peace after centuries of conflict.
Buddhists in Tibet have been involved in perpetrating atrocities, both against each other and individuals of other religions. The historical context reveals instances of violence and oppression within Tibet, including the feudal serfdom system that subjected serfs to harsh conditions and exploitation by their owners, who were often monks and aristocrats.
Moreover, the involvement of Buddhists in violence is not limited to Tibet but extends to other regions as well. For example, during the Cold War era in Southeast Asia, Thai Buddhists were complicit in anti-communist mass killings under a nationalist ideology that aligned with Buddhism’s principles. This involvement in political violence highlights how Buddhism has been weaponized by political authorities to consolidate power. The history of Buddhist violence underscores the complex relationship between religion and politics, showcasing how religious beliefs can be manipulated to justify or incite acts of aggression. Some notable examples include the mass killing of Ajivikas in India, the violence in Myanmar against Muslim Rohingyas.
I guess what you were trying to say was that Buddhism wasn’t as powerful as Christianity to reach the scale of Crusades.
You are correct that what I said could just reflect the fact that Buddhism hasn’t reached the same level of political consolidation as Christianity. But there have been Buddhist empires throughout history.
You do point out another aspect that I was reflecting on though, that these religions are used as tools by nationalists or other political authorities. In my view it is not the religion itself that enables or supports these atrocities but the centralized power that these organizations are able to hold. Human societies have had religion for all of known history so it is difficult to thoroughly prove that these societies would be more or less violent without religion of any type. If they didn’t have a religious group driving the masses to be pawns of their violence, it could be a trade group like the Dutch East India Company.
Myanmar.
Buddhism has extremely good PR, but ultimately it is just that: PR. You can find messages of peace, compassion, and violence in plenty of religions to higher or lesser degrees, but as soon as they become large enough to be politically relevant, one leader or another will resort to violence sooner or later, and will take advantage of their followers’ faith to justify it.
As for Buddhism specifically, this is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#Regional_examples
“I know there have been Buddhist terror groups but…” the joke writes itself 😂
In ancient China, Buddhist organizations also had a history of annexing land, oppressing people, and competing with secular governments.
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” - Christopher Hitchens
Heh. Got me!
That’s the leather flag they’re flying
Religion has always been a tool for conservatives to wield power over normal people.
You say that as if conservatism has always been. Its a relatively recent phenomenon. Religion, at its earliest historically, has been a function of community; and essential service to strengthen a community’s bonds. Eventually it was used by the ruling class as a guise for divine right, to legitimize the power of those in power. Then it has evolved into what it is today, a cash grab. Of course this is very surface level, but my point still stands.
Considering their respective ages, hard line Islam is pretty much up to what Christians were up to in those days.
LOL, this was literally an argument in favor of Nazis in the Soviet “17 moments of spring” series. We are a young ideology and movement, why do you judge us so harshly…
Islam will be judged by the same measure as everything else, by which it’s an infection (mostly, Nizari-Ismaili guys are chill).
See when you start debating history, that’s just weird. What I said is a fact, Christians 500 years ago were doing horrendous things. All religion is bad.
Removed by mod
Why is it that being on the internet turns people into complete pieces of shit. Would you really call someone dense in the middle of a scholarly debate in a face to face setting? No, cause you know that doing that sort of thing makes you a garbage human, yet here you are on the internet being a garbage human and you think it’s acceptable.
homie we are on lemmy, shitposting about religion being bad to humans. This is anything but scholarly. Go write a dissertation on it.
I also wasn’t “debating history”.
Would you really call someone dense in the middle of a scholarly debate in a face to face setting?
No, but in the middle of a scholarly debate I’d be able to express many things with my face.
But… Islam is older than Christianity…?
Islam is technically 1400 years old in the way Christianity is technically 2000 years old.
Modern Islams and Christianities, it’s more complicated.
Huh, TIL! Thanks for the info!
Hey, yo! Here’s a fun one. Jesus is a side character in Islam. Isn’t that rad?
Rad or mediocre retconning?
I think it’s an homage to George Lucas. It rhymes.
Muhammad died in 632 C.E
Nah, Mohammed came out and claimed that although Jesus was indeed a prophet his word was somehow corrupted, hence Islam.
Christianity 2: The Dune Messiah
Nope islam is the successor to christianity, so it has to come after
If you think Radical Islam is alone I’d like to introduce you to Ireland and India. Both countries proving that radicalism transcends race and culture.
Radical Buddhist monks in Myanmar fomented a genocide. I always point that out when someone says Buddhism is the one good religion or whatever.
Indians are committing Genocide on Muslims. Somethig something blame Islam.
All religions are or have the potential to be completely shit. End all religions.
1
There are still certain forms of Christianity, that are equally as bad as “radical Islam”.
Yes, following the famous doctrine of atheism.
I’ll remind you the only thing tying atheists together is the lack of belief in god(s). Besides that, nothing has anything to do with atheism
And this community. But aside from those two things, nothing else.
Religion is not the enemy, church is the enemy. Church wants to be accepted as the only path to salvation. The enemy is church, or whatever name it is called.
There is one difference:
The Spanish Inquisition killed less people in 300 years than Islamism every single day.
Guess you didn’t expect the Spanish Inquistion?
Are you forgetting the genocide commited by the ultra orthodox Spanish in South America? Have you ever been to Buenos Aires? Super long flight only to end up in the whitest European city ever. Oh and also, what about the total killings until today just by US made mines and shrapnel in Southeast Asia? Doesn’t even come close to whatever number you had in mind for “Islamism”.
Since when is the US the Church? Oh, wait…
