You and I know that Karl Marx founded Marxism but we cannot assume that everybody knows that in exactly the same way as we know it.
Which is exactly my point re: Christianity.
To say that Christ had nothing to do with the foundations of Christianity is exactly like saying that Marx had nothing to do with the foundations of Marxism. It is a completely nonsensical statement to make. I just wanted to be sure that wasn;t what you- or Jim- was saying.
When somebody says Marxism is evil, are they talking about Karl Marx being evil or are they talking about the followers of Karl Marx who are evil ?
Again, that's my point. You cannot blame Christ- or Marx for that matter- for the things done in His -or his- name by flawed humans.
Likewise, when Jim says that christianity is fundamentally evil, is he talking about the founder of christianity or the followers of christianity who are evil.
Based on this statement:
A- I continue to think that christanity is fundamentally evil.
one would have to conclude that, because Christ and his teachings are the rock upon which Christianity was founded, Jim thinks that Chirst and Christianity are both evil. That's a shame because it paints him as not only ignorant of all the good that Christianity has done and is doing but also marks him as a bigot. I thought better of him but I seem to be making that mistake more and more often.
To Jim, the words "fundamentally evil" might also be synonymous with the word "basically" as in the sentence " He is fundamentally dishonest" and if you take Jim's definition of the words "fundamentally evil" he is talking about the followers of Christ and not Jesus Himself.
Based again on his statements, I would have to disagree.
So either way, whether Jim is thinking that Jesus did not start Christianity or the followers of Christ are evil, the words "fundamentally evil" do not point to Jesus at all, as acknowledged by Jim himself
Where is this acknowledgement?
I have not seen Jim draw any distinction whatsoever between "Christ" and "Christianity", as evidenced by his continued statements that Christianity is "fundamentally evil"- something he repeated after you made your post. I think Jim more than capable of drawing such a distinction- >>IF<< he wanted to. Clearly, since he has repeated his statement, he does NOT want to because that is not what he believes.
What I find curious is the way you rush to defend his anti-religious statements, even to the point of defending something Jim did not say. He's clearly comfortable with being an anti-religion bigot, so why are you defending him?