The corruption of religion implies that there is a more, for lack of a better term, pure form of it that exists, or at least existed. However, every denomination and sect of each individual religion claims to be this “pure” form. If I were to be cynical, I would say that religion has been corrupt since it’s inception, as it was used primarily as a tool to establish authority and “order,” but under the guise of “truth” or “morality.” — Pinprick

considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point.

considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point. — christian2017

I've been an agnostic for over 60 years now...and I have known MANY people who are religious who are decent, reasonable, intelligent people...some of whom go out of their way to help with the needs of their fellow human.

Anyone (like Pinprick, apparently) who thinks "religious = mostly bad" and "without religion = mostly good" is simply not giving the issue sufficient reflection.

Good, decent, bad, evil, generous, envious, caring, oblivious, moral, depraved, merciful, resentful, kind, malevolent, considerate, compassionate...are traits shared equally by theists, agnostics, and atheists.

It is time we all come to realize that.

considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point.
— christian2017

I've been an agnostic for over 60 years now...and I have known MANY people who are religious who are decent, reasonable, intelligent people...some of whom go out of their way to help with the needs of their fellow human.

Anyone (like Pinprick, apparently) who thinks "religious = mostly bad" and "without religion = mostly good" is simply not giving the issue sufficient reflection.

Good, decent, bad, evil, generous, envious, caring, oblivious, moral, depraved, merciful, resentful, kind, malevolent, considerate, compassionate...are traits shared equally by theists, agnostics, and atheists.

It is time we all come to realize that. — Frank Apisa

well in this modern age i would have to agree with that

conflict between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism. — Wayfarer

But the way I see it now, they are examples of how human nature can corrupt the most noble of intentions. — Wayfarer

Would you agree that certain aspects of a belief system, like associated claims of exclusive rights to the truth and infallibility make them easier to corrupt, especially in combination with human weaknesses among which the most relevant here are abhorring being contradicted and a proclivity to strongly identify our person with our beliefs, the two reinforcing each other? This deadly cocktail of conditions is to be found nowhere more easily than in religion and if one adds to it other human failings of lust for power and money, we create an environment conducive to the rise and perpetuation of corrupt and brutally oppressive theocratic regimes.

While I don't think this is the inevitable fate of religion, there's no denying the existence of a deep flaw in religion, just there to be either exploited by the unscrupulous or mishandled by genuine believers with predictable results.

But, there's a great book around, God's Philosophers, by James Hannam, which shows how essential the fundamental tenets of Christian Platonism were in the development of modern science. There are many others as well. Look into Stanley Jaki, an Hungarian Benedictine monk with PHDs in physics, philosophy and theology; he mounts an argument that modern science could only have sprung from Christian roots. (I myself think that Platonism and its Aristotelian descendants were indispensable in that.) — Wayfarer

Thanks for the reference and also for making me realize the possibility of my views being hopelessly biased.

it's more like an Hegelian dialectic, of thesis (divine creation), anti-thesis (scientific materialism) and now an emerging synthesis (which I see in various disciplines like systems science, biosemiotics, and environmentalism which are neither theistic in the traditional sense nor materialistic in the modern sense.) — Wayfarer

Great angle. Thanks for letting me in on it.

I think there was a really unfortunate emphasis in Western religion on orthodoxy, which basically means right belief; the experiential and gnostic facets of religious experience, which were preserved in Indian and Chinese religions, were suppressed, forced underground. I think, arguably, this is because belief is a much easier thing to manage than knowledge; once you can convince the populace that they must believe what you tell them, then control is much easier to maintain. The reaction against that, the wall of separation between the sacred and profane that became necessary - all of this is part of that deep picture. Which, very handily, comes right back to the OP. — Wayfarer

This speaks to the first paragraph in this post.

The Pope and Stalin have killed for not being Catholic/Athiest.

I would argue the corruption of religion dates back to whether a religion becomes like the religions of ancient Iraq. Temple prostitution in modern hinduism is an example of this.

Americans typically don't get violent over religion in modern times. Alot of American violence is over economic or on the other hand domestic issues. — christian2017

The problem I see re corruption and religion is that the latter is about submission to a higher power and this acts as a magnet to politicians and statesmen - people who'd like nothing more than to legitimize and consolidate power through divine association.

Perhaps I digress.

The Pope and Stalin have killed for not being Catholic/Athiest.

I would argue the corruption of religion dates back to whether a religion becomes like the religions of ancient Iraq. Temple prostitution in modern hinduism is an example of this.

Americans typically don't get violent over religion in modern times. Alot of American violence is over economic or on the other hand domestic issues.
— christian2017

The problem I see re corruption and religion is that the latter is about submission to a higher power and this acts as a magnet to politicians and statesmen - people who'd like nothing more than to legitimize and consolidate power through divine association.

Perhaps I digress. — TheMadFool

How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out?

That’s not at all what I am saying or implying. The overwhelming majority of people in general are at least decent. I just don’t understand what @christian2017meant by religious corruption. As far as I know, there is absolutely no agreement in any religion as to what is the correct doctrine, and which doctrine is corrupt. That’s precisely why there are so many different sects and denominations within each religion. Therefore, who is to say that Jihadism is a corrupted form of Islam, for example? Those Muslims that are not Jihadists may think so, but the reverse is also true. I guess the more direct questions I was asking were when was religion corrupted, and by who? And what is your reasoning to back up whatever your claim is?

That’s not at all what I am saying or implying. The overwhelming majority of people in general are at least decent. I just don’t understand what christian2017meant by religious corruption. As far as I know, there is absolutely no agreement in any religion as to what is the correct doctrine, and which doctrine is corrupt. That’s precisely why there are so many different sects and denominations within each religion. Therefore, who is to say that Jihadism is a corrupted form of Islam, for example? Those Muslims that are not Jihadists may think so, but the reverse is also true. I guess the more direct questions I was asking were when was religion corrupted, and by who? And what is your reasoning to back up whatever your claim is? — Pinprick

Chistianity and Islam is drastically different. There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical". I would argue if a Christian is reasonable and tries somewhat to embrace "turn the other cheek", they don't have anything to worry about in terms of correct theology (ofcourse they have to accept John chapter 3 to a strong measure as it is traditionally understood).

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.

As far as rejecting religion altogether, that has never had great (keyword: great) results. Yes embracing religion doesn't always have good effects either.

Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord.

If the freedom to practice religion is a fundamental right, doesn't that mean religion is still prevalent in the general populace? — TheMadFool

It does. The Establishment of Religion clause of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution was not a stand against theological ideas or styles of life but the removal of an arbiter who decided which of those are okay or not.
The decision to make that rule a central principle of government was influenced by noting how all the wars of religion came from restricting those expressions and forms.
In that sense, the secular is more about avoiding bloody conflict on the basis of belief systems than anything else. A political riot act, if you will.

Chistianity and Islam is drastically different. — christian2017

Sure, but I don’t see the relevance here. You mentioned the corruption of religion, but not of a specific religion.

There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical". — christian2017

They aren’t deemed heretical by who? Accepted by who? Are there other denominations that claim to be Christian, but are not accepted? If so, on what grounds?

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement. — christian2017

Sure, but I meant total agreement.

Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord. — christian2017

There are many statements in all of the religions texts, but people interpret them differently. Usually some mixture of literal and metaphorical/allegorical. I know Jihadism is in the Koran, but not all Muslims practice it. My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. Perhaps Jihadism should be taken literally, or perhaps not. It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with.

Chistianity and Islam is drastically different.
— christian2017

Sure, but I don’t see the relevance here. You mentioned the corruption of religion, but not of a specific religion.

There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical".
— christian2017

They aren’t deemed heretical by who? Accepted by who? Are there other denominations that claim to be Christian, but are not accepted? If so, on what grounds?

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.
— christian2017

Sure, but I meant total agreement.

Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord.
— christian2017

There are many statements in all of the religions texts, but people interpret them differently. Usually some mixture of literal and metaphorical/allegorical. I know Jihadism is in the Koran, but not all Muslims practice it. My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. Perhaps Jihadism should be taken literally, or perhaps not. It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with. — Pinprick

" It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with."

I agree. Do you agree with your own statement?

As far as Pale of Orthodoxy is concerned, how many Pentecostals, United Methodists, Presybiterian (liberal or conservative), Anglican, and even Catholic to some extent actively barrage each other or even kill each other over theology. Most Christians critisize other christians (or kill) over money. If you want to critisize the modern christian church, the primary accusation you can make is over the churches use of money, the church's view of the work ethic of the poor, and how the church view's modern building codes and land practices. Most christians are angry at other christian over economics.

There are many Muslim theocratical countries and they have a tremendous amount of land, why is it they can't be happy with the amount they have? And why when they expand is it not about expanding a secular nation but instead a theocratic nation?

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.
— christian2017

Sure, but I meant total agreement. — Pinprick

That adds confusion to your post. So i had to comment on it because that changes what you are saying a very significant amount.

Would you agree that certain aspects of a belief system, like associated claims of exclusive rights to the truth and infallibility make them easier to corrupt, especially in combination with human weaknesses among which the most relevant here are abhorring being contradicted and a proclivity to strongly identify our person with our beliefs, the two reinforcing each other? — TheMadFool

Religions clearly become corrupted, no doubt. When much younger, I generally regarded mainstream religion as being the fossilised remnants of once-living insights. If I’ve tempered that view, it’s because I’m now much more aware of my own weakness and fallibility.

there's no denying the existence of a deep flaw in religion, — TheMadFool

Many religions would say the flaw is in human nature, which tends to corrupt whatever it handles.

What are the 'truth claims of religion'? There's a blog post by Willliam Vallicella analysing Josiah Royce's philosophy of religion. He sees religion in these terms:

(a) There is a paramount end or aim of human life relative to which other aims are vain.

b) Man as he now is, or naturally is, is in danger of missing his highest aim, his highest good.

To hold that man needs salvation is to hold both of (a) and (b). I would put it like this. The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped.

Strikes a chord in me, but not in that many others. But the point is, religion(s) are, or ought to be, concerned with existential realities not with what we nowadays call empirical hypotheses.

How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out? — christian2017

Sorry. I'm too ignorant to make a sensible comment on the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. All I know is Kurt Godel, the mathematician, is believed to have discovered a loophole in the US constitution that could change the world's greatest democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship. He is said to have tried to make this known to the judge responsible for his US citizenship but was talked out of it by Albert Einstein who thought it would upset the judge and make Godel lose his chance to become an American citizen. Perhaps it's apocryphal. I don't know but you never know...

:clap: :up: Thank you

How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out?
— christian2017

Sorry. I'm too ignorant to make a sensible comment on the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. All I know is Kurt Godel, the mathematician, is believed to have discovered a loophole in the US constitution that could change the world's greatest democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship. He is said to have tried to make this known to the judge responsible for his US citizenship but was talked out of it by Albert Einstein who thought it would upset the judge and make Godel lose his chance to become an American citizen. Perhaps it's apocryphal. I don't know but you never know... — TheMadFool

How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out?
— christian2017

Sorry. I'm too ignorant to make a sensible comment on the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. All I know is Kurt Godel, the mathematician, is believed to have discovered a loophole in the US constitution that could change the world's greatest democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship. He is said to have tried to make this known to the judge responsible for his US citizenship but was talked out of it by Albert Einstein who thought it would upset the judge and make Godel lose his chance to become an American citizen. Perhaps it's apocryphal. I don't know but you never know... — TheMadFool

I would argue its very hard to write an air tight legal code that has removed 100% of loop holes. It would be funny if one day a future despot used that loop hole and a subset of the US population to on the philosophical level over throw the rest of the constitution and i guess hypothetically a large subset of the US population. I'm curious as to what that loop hole is.

I'm curious as to what that loop hole is. — christian2017

I have no idea. Nevertheles, if Godel was right, it exists, waiting to be discovered by a person who means business as far as making faerself an absolute dictator is concerned.

I'm curious as to what that loop hole is.
— christian2017

I have no idea. Nevertheles, if Godel was right, it exists, waiting to be discovered by a person who means business as far as making faerself an absolute dictator is concerned. — TheMadFool

probably one of the more plausible conspiracy theories.

probably one of the more plausible conspiracy theories. — christian2017

Is it a conspiracy theory? No truth? Not even a teensy weensy bit? You needn't answer.

probably one of the more plausible conspiracy theories.
— christian2017

Is it a conspiracy theory? No truth? Not even a teensy weensy bit? You needn't answer. — TheMadFool

I believe alot of conspiracy theories are true. I guess we are defining conspiracy theory differently.

I believe alot of conspiracy theories are true. I guess we are defining conspiracy theory differently. — christian2017

Forget that I asked. Thank you.

According to LII at Cornell Law School...

Establishment Clause

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, public funds to be used for private religious school bussing and textbooks, and university funds to be used to print and public student religious groups' publications. Conversely, the Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.

So, it would appear that the case of the praying governor will result in the DOP going forward.

The Establishment Clause protects religious institutions as well as secular institutions. Active and persistent state involvement in religious affairs has a tendency to be harmful, all round, just as active and persistent religious involvement in the affairs of state has often turned out badly.

One of the reasons why religion remains a large factor in American life is that there was no established church. Nothing prevented the people from engaging in 2 1/2 centuries of religious activism, innovation, or invention (take the Mormons as an example). Established churches in some European countries contributed to finally more secular societies.

@Wayfarer @christian2017 @TheMadFool Would any of you care to explain what a corrupt religion is, and how you determine it to be so? What is your method for distinguishing what is exactly meant in any religions holy book? I assume that you all mean that a religion is corrupted when people use it to justify doing despicable things to those that they oppose. However, often when people do that sort of justifying, they present specific passages from their holy book. So how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone?

Thanks for this. :up:

So how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone? — Pinprick

Highly cogent question. Take Psalm 137:7-9

7 Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof.

8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This isn't the only reference to bashing in the brains of the enemies' infants in the Bible. Acquiring and keeping the promised land was not a tea party. So, where does that leave us?

Would any of you care to explain what a corrupt religion is, and how you determine it to be so? — Pinprick

You didn't ask me, but one example of corrupt religion would be one of the causes of the Reformation: The wanton sale of indulgences for the purpose of financing real estate projects in Rome--St. Peter's Basilica. At best it was a pious fraud; at worst it was abuse of the faithful.

Now, there is hardly a congregation in the United States (there are some exceptions) that is not driven by the needs of its building. New roof, new boiler, broken windows, fix the organ--all projects costing hundreds of thousands of dollars on even moderate sized buildings. The congregations taking loving care of their real estate have little money left over to feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for the sick, and so on. By secular standards, the church is doing what it should be doing--taking care of business, and the property is definitely a piece of the business. By Christ's standards, the building is an abomination -- a storing up of wealth in buildings that need continual and expensive maintenance.

Corrupt? Or just trapped?

Would any of you care to explain what a corrupt religion is, and how you determine it to be so? What is your method for distinguishing what is exactly meant in any religions holy book? I assume that you all mean that a religion is corrupted when people use it to justify doing despicable things to those that they oppose. However, often when people do that sort of justifying, they present specific passages from their holy book. So how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone? — Pinprick

In some ways for you to accept my explanation of corrupt religion you would first have to believe there is a possibility that there is a religion that is not corrupt.

However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now.

In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".

Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC?

how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone? — Pinprick

My interest in religion was never centered around 'holy books', as such, it's certainly not bible-centred. I'm interested in philosophy of religion and mysticism in the true sense of that oft-abused term. But as others have pointed out, the corruption of religious institutions is a fact of history; I think as soon as something becomes an institution, then it implements a power-structure, and wherever there's power, there's the possibility of corruption.

In an ideal state, the leaders of the hierarchy would always act disinterestedly and for the greater good; presumably, there are at least some religious leaders that have done that, but there's also plenty that have not.

My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. — Pinprick

There is no detached, objective or scientific way to determine it.

If you look at objectively-determinable questions - how best to control the spread of COVID-19, for instance - whilst there might be different schools of thought, the answers can be determined scientifically, based on the understanding of infection vectors, the characteristics of this pathogen, and so on. You have a method on the one side, and the result on the other. That is the underlying framework of the objective sciences.

A religious discipline poses different questions and operates along a different axis - one where the believer is both the subject and the object of the discipline. It requires a personal commitment or a realisation that it matters to you personally. It is in that sense 'subjective' but at the same time, as religions generally reject self-centredness, then it relies on a kind of detached subjectivity, rather than subjective in the sense of being an expression of one's particular likes and dislikes. (Tricky point, I know.)

This is the basis of the is/ought problem first identified by David Hume: that science deals with what is measurable, whilst religions are concerned with what is right or true (in the sense of Truth with a capital T). The quandary for a technologically-advanced culture is that the two sets of standards are incommensurable - meaning that from the viewpoint of secular culture, it's impossible to make value judgements about the overall veracity of different religions - say, scientology, Santeria, and Catholicism. The only criteria in secular culture is that they attract believers, and are therefore legitimately a matter in which individuals exercise freedom of choice. But the truth or falsity of such systems of belief is not really a matter that can be judged from a secular point of view (except insofar as they encourage anti-social or illegal behaviours in which case they are judged on the basis of civil law).

What is your method for distinguishing what is exactly meant in any religions holy book? — Pinprick

In Continental philosophy - not so much anglo-american - 'hermeneutics' is a recognised discipline, which is mainly concerned with interpretation of texts, especially sacred literature, in the light of current culture. This has lead to the concept of the 'hermeneutic circle':



To me personally, religious texts are, or can be, evidence of mankind's 'encounter with the sacred' although that perspective draws more on anthropology and religious psychology.

In some ways for you to accept my explanation of corrupt religion you would first have to believe there is a possibility that there is a religion that is not corrupt. — christian2017

If you try, I could be persuaded. Of course, I’m not implying that the founders of any religion were corrupt, I don’t think that’s even possible, unless we have different ideas of what corrupt means.

However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now. — christian2017

With the exception of rejecting their own holy books, none of these things necessarily make a religion corrupt. If the founder of the religion intended for its adherents to practice temple prostitution, sex abuse, etc. then those practices would be completely in line with that religions doctrine. Have there been religions that have rejected their own holy books?

In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".

Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC? — christian2017

I literally have no clue what you’re trying to get at here...

In some ways for you to accept my explanation of corrupt religion you would first have to believe there is a possibility that there is a religion that is not corrupt.
— christian2017

If you try, I could be persuaded. Of course, I’m not implying that the founders of any religion were corrupt, I don’t think that’s even possible, unless we have different ideas of what corrupt means.

However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now.
— christian2017

With the exception of rejecting their own holy books, none of these things necessarily make a religion corrupt. If the founder of the religion intended for its adherents to practice temple prostitution, sex abuse, etc. then those practices would be completely in line with that religions doctrine. Have there been religions that have rejected their own holy books?

In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".

Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC?
— christian2017

I literally have no clue what you’re trying to get at here... — Pinprick

"In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".

Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC?"

You asked what i mean by this, some say Joshua shouldn't have killed the children (assuming he did and i assume he did) of the cities he conquered (book of joshua old testament), had he not killed them the parents would have a strange conversation with their adopted children when they became teenagers. Also child sacrifice was common among amorites in canaan as well as in ancient iraq. Hammurabi was actually an amorite just in case you didn't know.

If you would like me to go on and on about the culture of canaan i can. Territories in history have certainly been conquered over much lesser crimes.


In regards to what is below:

However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now.
— christian2017

With the exception of rejecting their own holy books, none of these things necessarily make a religion corrupt. If the founder of the religion intended for its adherents to practice temple prostitution, sex abuse, etc. then those practices would be completely in line with that religions doctrine. Have there been religions that have rejected their own holy books?"


___________________________________

If you disagree with these things in that you don't find them to be corruption, either my concept of reality is severely flawed or yours is and there is no point in us trying to convince each otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if at this point we get into a discussion about post-modernism.

You could be laughing at me behind your computer know full well you do find these things are corruption. Why would i try to convince you of these things. To me this is like trying to convince you that 1 + 1 = 2.

However only time will tell which one of us is correct. Perhaps these things i label or call "the corruption of religion" don't matter and as Paul in the Bible says "if we are wrong about what we believe, we are the lowest among all people". I'm sure i butchered that verse a little bit.