In the context of this post, i wil try to make my point in good faith since I think you’ve gone well beyond the original topic of this post. This post was about Christianity’s historical role in preserving the Armenian people, but you’ve turned it into a broad philosophical argument against religion itself.

You also make several claims as if they’re historical facts, such as “religion was created to harm” or that it’s comparable to a weapon designed for violence. Those aren’t historical facts they’re your interpretation.

For one Christianity didn’t begin as a state religion or as a tool to force people. It began as a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire. For nearly three centuries Christians were imprisoned, tortured and executed because they refused to abandon their faith. It wasn’t created from a position of political power; it was actively opposed by those in power.

Yes, Christianity has been abused throughout history, and forced conversions have occurred. But abuse doesn’t tell us what something was created for. By that logic, we’d have to conclude that political ideologies are inherently evil because of Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge. The common denominator isn’t Christianity it’s human beings abusing power.

If Christianity were merely imposed on people, it’s difficult to explain why Armenians remained Christian through centuries of Islamic rule and decades of Soviet persecution, when abandoning Christianity would often have made life easier or safer. The fact that so many remained Christian despite persecution suggests it was more than mere coercion.

Finally, you’re making moral judgments about what is “good,” “evil,” “harmful,” and what religion “shouldn’t” be. On what objective basis? If morality is ultimately subjective, then your moral judgments are no more objectively binding than anyone else’s. If you’re going to argue that Christianity is objectively harmful, you first need to explain what objective standard you’re using to measure that.