Is the most harmful religion also the most authentic religion?

[Brettongarcia]

26. Sirveaux as usual is playing "apologetics"; playing logic and word games to defend "good" religion

The always surreptitiously apologist or pro-religion writer, Sirveaux, is here apparently accusing critics of religion in effect, of regarding only obviously bad religion. As if that was the only "authentic" form. While ignoring “good” religion; as if it was “inauthentic” or not real religion, in effect. As if obviously bad religion was ironically, the critics' "bread and butter." While critics, he implies, unjustly ignore the good religions, which don't offer as much ammo for criticism.

But? Sirveaux? We also criticize “Good” liberal, spiritual, "peaceful" religion here too.

In fact it seems, likely even the allegedly peaceful and spiritual ones are bad too. Here you might like to consider the dark side of even, say, apparently peaceful, spiritual monks, "ascetics." There were very, very spiritual ascetics for example, who despised physical things like food; to the point that they themselves starved to death. And/or guided others to starvation. From over-spirituality; lack of attention to the physical side of life.

Sirveaux? Some of us have heard sly apologetics games, sermons, all our lives; from priests, ministers, theologians. By now, many of us recognize a "apologist," the instant we hear him. And many of us are already, long since, quite, quite tired of such word games.

Your latest apologetics game on DU? Is accusing critics of favoring - or ironically in a sense, being attached to, regarding as "authentic" - only bad religion in some sense (as a subject for criticism). By that is merely annoying. And untrue in every way.

Sirveaux? Some of us were weary of this kind of trick, decades ago. And we won't have much more patience for it.....