What I have a problem with is when people demonstrate contempt towards each other on the basis of religion.
Is contempt always wrong? I mean, if someone is flat out wrong, can I have contempt for them? Would you have a problem with that?
To mistreat another person because of even a vehement disagreement...I do not think that being
cruel to someone over that would be right. Pursuing
justice or
self-defense is another matter. If someone puts life or limb, or your property in danger, you absolutely have the right to defend yourself. I also think that if someone's wrong becomes a legal matter, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of suing them. I also do not have a problem with that. Justice and contempt actually do not have to go together--and really never should, in my opinion because we need to keep a clear head when we make decisions of that nature.
I would, however, draw the line at returning someone's contempt with an assault, going after someone's family, or doing anything of that nature. And as I think we well know, there's a big difference between despising what someone has done, and becoming consumed by hate for them.
I am contemptuous of Scientology because it was made up by a guy who just wanted to make money.
And I assume Jesus had the same motives. All of the "miracles" he did can be broken down to a couple of cheap tricks to fool his followers.
We've seen how absolutely faithful someone can be, and sect leaders shamelessly exploit that. They have done that thousands of years ago, they do it today and they will do it thousands of years from now.
If there's one thing Jesus never had during the time of his ministry, it was a bank account. (If he had anything for business purposes before, it never helps him later, or someone would've at least gotten the money out to bury him...it seems from that, that he must've given it away somehow.) He led what we would consider these days a very impoverished lifestyle. There do seem to have been funds to take care of the basic needs of the disciples, perhaps to compensate those who hosted them (we know Judas Iscariot was in charge of
something), but what's ironic is that Judas seems to think they could have gotten more money out of people, but they're not. (The other thing that suggests they didn't have a big purse was the fact that on multiple occasions, when big crowds showed up for an all-day speech, the disciples clearly didn't have enough money on them to feed even a small portion of the crowd the normal way, or that whole logistical issue would never have cropped up.

)
As to exploitation, I don't see evidence that people were coerced or anything of that nature...what's actually very interesting to see is that the miracles Jesus worked did
not have much "staying power" among the people, and a lot of people who were around because they wanted to see something cool didn't stick around. They didn't want to commit to what Jesus was teaching, and He didn't force them to.