| I think politics is as critical part of group of people as breathing. I don't think you can separate the practical tradition from the theological one, as most practicing religion are familiar with only the practical aspects. The more people respect and believe you, the more political force you can amass. Hence, a popular religion weilds quite a lot of political force. As such it would be totally misguided to pretend this political context would not exist, or worse, use it in catastrophic ways. There's a good reason churches did not approve of heretics when people were uneducated and easy to arouse into a mass hysteria. There's also a good reason to co-operate with the state so that the political interest of the church and the state are aligned - as opposing large political factions have an almost natural tendency to create turmoil and chaos, like hydrogen and oxygen, even if their leaders werent terribly ambitious (there are always easily exitable factions on both sides). The fact that bible survives, and is at it is, for example, is the result of a political process as much as anything else. Thus the interpretations as well are mostly done within a political context. I agree from the philosophical point of view - "meek shall inherit the earth" is pretty much as revolutionary concept as it can get - but from practical point of view this has most of the time meant that you must meakly obey your landlord. If we understand revolution as a practical political concept - I don't think there has been much revolutionary about christianity en masse, as I wrote in my previous reply. I think for the most parts the historical inheritance of christianity is net positive, especially when we get to the literary tradition spurred by protestantianism. "The deeper principles of total forgiveness and relinquishing of individual claims to righteousness are the core, in my view; if not globally unique" I might be totally off base, but I understood one could claim those principles to be at the core buddhism as well. |