There's tonnes one could do with religious mythology and revisionism. Among them:The belief that Jesus was a mythical / literary figure has been decisively refuted.
(This one sticks out to me because I used to geek out about Christian origins for some obscure reason.) This is indeed still current among Biblical scholars... but rests on so little data that said consensus isn't very compelling, especially when the most the scholarly consensus can
say about the "historical Jesus" is that maybe there was a guy at some point to whom a handful of the old apocryphal "sayings Gospels" might possibly be traced. (Translation: "The traditional Gospel narrative isn't totally fictional... just mostly
fictional!" And yet apparently that last half-inch of maybe-nonfiction will be defended to the last drop of blood.) Meanwhile, the opposing arguments are far stronger than the scholarly "mainstream" likes to think.Paganism (and/or Gnosticism) was totally inclusive and feminist until [the Catholic Church / modern Christianity] came along and harshed everybody's buzz.
This was born partly from feminist thealogy and the Goddess Movement of the late-20th century, which tried to reconstruct paganism as a feminist alternative to the masculinist fundies of the day; and with counterculture fascination with Gnosticism, which because it was Christianity's early also-ran form, eventually overcome by the mainline Church, was thought to have been something the inverse of all the crappy exclusivist, sin- and shame-oriented patriarchal thinking of Christianity. But the old-style pagans of yore, be they European or African or what-have-you, rarely live up to this permissive and liberal image -- Norse paganism was actually more
sexist in a great many ways than Christianity. And all the elements that are taken to be a drag about modern Christianity (esp. Catholicism) were present to a far worse
degree in Gnosticism: obscurantist theology (Gnosticism would see your Holy Trinity and endless hairsplitting arguments about the natures of the Christ and raise you several ranks of Emanations of the Pleroma with countless associated Aeons), baked-in anti-Semitism (Christianity was calling the Jews Christ-killers from early on, but Gnosticism taught that the Hebrew God of the Old Testament was actively evil and that a new God had come to rescue the world from that God), outrageous sexism (Paul said "keep your women silent in the churches," but the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas promotes the doctrine that women could only enter the Kingdom of Heaven by getting a sex change; no, really), and so on.Early Islam converted people by the sword, and this is what "jihad" means.
Actually, the early Arab Caliphates made a point of not
doing mass-conversions: aside from the fact that the Quran actually explicitly enjoins religious tolerance (something rather glossed over by modern-day "political Islam" and even moreso by the counterpart Islamophobes in the West), there was a tiny layer of Arabs over a large mass of subject peoples who would have been seriously pissed by any such attempt... and were much more useful paying poll taxes, anyway. Mass top-down conversions were actually much more characteristic of European Christianity.Buddhism is universally tolerant, peaceful and laid-back.
Most people are familiar with the avuncular, pluralistic, sanitized and superficially Western-friendly image of the Dalai Lama, with decades of received pop-culture myth about pacifist Tibetan lamaseries and upstanding Shaolin monks, with the Buddhism of Richard Gere and the Hollywood celebrity. These images are why modern Islamophobia often poses Buddhism as the peaceful "other" of the supposedly uniquely violent religion. But these images have obscured a far more complicated history and reality of Buddhism, which has as long-standing a relationship with war and violence as any Western religious tradition does and developed its own sometimes disturbing workarounds for its core commandment of compassion (such as the notion of "compassionate killing") as noted here