deleted by creator
TIL that evangelicals who listen, in church, to the literal Sermon on the Mount are complaining to said preachers about all those “woke leftist talking points.” When reminded that these were the literal teachings of Jesus Christ, they double down about how it’s old, week, and no longer applies.
Evangelicalism is running out of actual Christians in its churches. They’re so addicted to toxic GOP insanity that they’ve replaced their actual religion with insane political machinations in a silly hat.
As a non Jew, this is one of the things I appreciate about Judaism. Y’all might believe this, but you spend zero effort convincing me this is true.
Except for orthodox jews who are currently legislating their ass-backwards practice in Israel.
Every religion sucks, some just have the power.
Those are fundamentalists. They are an outlier.
And yet they’re the ones who run the country now.
You’re right. It isn’t true. Judaism’s official position is that Judaism is explicitly for Jews only. You’re welcome to join us if you do the work to do so and realize the difficulty it may bring, but it’s our thing and we explicitly do not try to try to convince other people to become Jews. We actively do the opposite, discouraging people to convert. Being Jewish doesn’t make us better people or worse people than anyone else, it just makes us Jews.
deleted by creator
I have no idea where you learned that, but you are just patently incorrect. Judaism is a distinct religion separated from Islam and Christianity. It’s not those religions-lite, it’s its own thing. It is an ethnoreligion, with atheists who practice Judaism culturally.
There is no “factually correct” means of Judaism either, the entire religion is based upon debate and discussion. If you ask two rabbis the same question, you will get four different answers. The word Israel directly translated to “to wrestle with G-d”
Yes, Judaism has its issue but doing this nonsense only serves to harm us.
There is a key religious philosophy in Judaism that athiests who do good deeds are potentially the most giving of all, as it is known for certain that they are doing good things for the sake of being good not out of fear or reward. That is the words uttered from one of the most important Jewish philosophers, ever.
Jews are not your enemy, we are your allies. Evil people tend come for us first, and we will stand up for you when we need to as well. American Jews are extremely chill and extremely left leaning. We are actively pushing back against the US backsliding.
The Torah is very explicit that the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is the one and only god. Atheists and agnostics who still culturally practice are not exclusive to Judaism.
There is no “factually correct” way of following any of the abrahamic religions that’s why there are differing sects in each one. All Abrahamic faiths worship the same jealous, genocidal god and simply disagree on a few miracles.
The bottom line is, Jews who believe they are chosen by the god their ancestors made up, are just as crazy as any other religious people.
deleted by creator
🙄 the chosen people think does not mean what you think it means. Jews disagree on more than just a “few miracles” the religion is literally completely different than other abrahamic religions
Regardless I know there’s no point in arguing with you. It’s ironic you say that other faiths have those who still culturally practice when it’s clear you have internalized Christian hegemony towards Jews and still perpetuate it. You’re acting like a Christian atheist. don’t take your religious trauma out on Jews please
I know exactly what it means I’m Jewish and I was raised orthodox. It’s a hateful, supremacist ideology. I have no interest in being part of a priestly class that governs the goyim.
Once again, all of the abrahamic faiths worship the god of Israel and affirm the hebrew torah is the word of god. That’s not “completely different.”
You’re the one grasping at straws claiming criticizing some of us is criticizing all. It is a sad desperate look and you should be ashamed for perpetuating it.
the priestly class that governs the goyim
Hm… interesting. I dunno if you’re being truthful as that’s an extremely common antisemitic canard outside of very very fundamentalist Jewish groups. And calling Judaism supremacist is very sus 🤔
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I am understanding what you’re saying, and I am telling that you’re wrong. You’re understanding on what religion stands for is coming a very Christianized perspective of what religion is and isn’t and taking that approach towards Judaism is extremely harmful. Someone believing in Buddhism does not mean they explicitly think all religions are incorrect, that’s probably the worst example as Buddhists are explicitly religiously pluralistic. Jews do not see Judaism as being above all religions and that all others are wrong, it’s more nuanced. Judaism is perfectly fine with other religions for the most part in the modern day. Religious pluralism is kind of the general consensus amongst Jews. Philosophically in Judaism its easier for non-Jews to be righteous and enter the afterlife over Jews themselves.
deleted by creator
Not believing in other religions does not mean that you believe all others are inherently incorrect. That is a very Christian thing.
Some people jusr don’t realize just how engrained Christianity is in our society.
Yeah, I know… Christian atheists stop perpetuating Christian antisemitism and culturally erasure challenge
The one correct religion is Atheism. We worship Athei.
Christianity is the one true religion. Except for Christianity that is not the Christianity that I grew up with. That Christianity is false.
“All religions are true but none are literal.”
Removed by mod
who? I’ve never heard of him in context of studying world religions… i was quoting an expert on Comparative Mythology.
“his views on cultural and political issues which have been described as conservative or right-wing.” - I don’t think “all religions are non-literal” sounds like conservative in any way, shape, or form.
Removed by mod
giving any direct answer on his actual religious beliefs is to highlight how “true in a sense” the stories are.
They are true, metaphorically. Just as much as Star Wars is true to the mass mind (hive mind, collective unconscious, whatever you call it) of the human experience. Just as much true as The Simpsons, Finengans Wake, Shakespeare, etc.
I think a lot of people avoid very basic things about religions: 1) They are learned much like spoken languages. 2) people have trouble learning second languages much like religions. 3) You can translate religion to religion, there are a lot of common concepts, even if often inverted. Take marriage, funerals, and holidays for examples.
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
It’s taking Fox News literally, it is taking Star Trek literally, it is taking fiction stories as fact / literal that’s the problem.
This is a pretty uneducated take, the statement may be generally true for monotheisms, but is pretty off base when it comes to the broad range of religions as a whole.
deleted by creator
Have to disagree here. There are and were many religions that accept the existence of gods of other religions. They can absolutely exist next to each other. Those religions that seek to spread through persuasion or violence are the outliers.
Those religions that seek to spread through persuasion or violence are the outliers.
Absurd.
There are thousands of religions worldwide. If more had the urge to spread, we’d see a higher diversity amongst the larger ones.
deleted by creator
You do realize many of the religious texts have passages that say “you can’t have any other religion than this one” right? The Bible has it, the Quran has it. Not sure about the Torah, but wouldn’t surprise me if it did have it. And those are the top three Abrahamic religions. Indian religions: I know Hinduism hates Islam. Buddhism is probably the only one that fits your claim, so congrats. Your claim is mostly wrong though.
There are a lot more religions than these five. Obviously I don’t mean Islam and Christianity. Hindus, as far as I know, don’t reject Islam because if theological, but because of historical reasons.
Of course I don’t know about every single one, but I’m pretty sure there is a reason Islam and Christianity spread so much while thousands of other religions didn’t. Non-missionary religions most probably don’t have any negative claims about other religions, because that only makes sense if they want to expand.
I mean… Hindus do reject Islam for theological reasons… Hinduism is not theologically compatible with Islam.
True! In a polytheist perspective multiple religions can be valid. Even the bible doesn’t actually claim there is only one God just that Yahweh demands to be placed atop the heirachy along with a lot of rules that would make worshipping any other God really hard.
Like take things from a Shinto perspective. There is no reason to suspect Yahweh doesn’t exist, but the characterization might be of a God who is lying because they want adoration and loyalty. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc are all viable as living beings who were far enough into their individual spiritual journeys that they could be living gods (though the concept of god is a little different from a pantheon-esque idea of a god or the idea rendered from a monotheist perspective.)
In Shinto you basically have more Gods than can be counted. Some of them like to interfere with humans and the world but for the most part whether you believe in them or not makes little to no difference to the Gods doing their thing. They are more likely to notice you if you try and get their attention but you have a chaotic blend of forces all work so every God that is claiming to be the best/only God would essentially be a flawed insecure power looking to lie to a bunch of humans (who are essentially children just starting out their spiritual progression) for basically similar reasons one lies to children. Either to control their behaviour or because it’s an easy source of validation… Or they just think it’s funny? In the belief system there is nothing to say these powers are not fallible. Just like adults they can have faults and thus all belief systems that have something alike to Gods (Kami) could all potentially be real and non-contradictory in the sense that there is a framework that supports them all existing simultaneously… Though absolutely contradictory in their motives.
Monotheist systems essentially give their Gods a sort of authorial intent. It is impossible for them to be flawed because they are the judge and jury of what is correct because they made the game and set the rules. Thus there can only be one correct set of answers. So multiple valid points of worship are simply not viable unless those entities are subordinate to the God of authorship.
Not Buddhism right? Can’t you be a Buddhist and also be a member of any other religion too?
Buddhism believes in reincarnation, which contradicts many other religions. Christianity believes in purgatory, heaven, and hell, but Buddhism has many times more and no hell lasts forever (although the worst “sins” will put you in a very specific hell for at least a billion years)
The belief in reincarnation is neither universal or necessary in Buddhism, with many masters being ambiguous or downright rejecting it, see Buddhadasa (Theravada) or Dōgen (Zen):
Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death. (Genjokoan)
The fundamentals are the Four Noble Truths.
I have heard this but I simple don’t get how they can maintain this position when all of their early writings disagree.
The Buddha wasn’t shy about discussing at length his other incarnations and how he had escaped the wheel of becoming. Granted Samsura is probably not his but it is based on stuff he supposedly said. I don’t get how they can even accept their polytheism without rebirth because there wouldn’t be a path to get to gods.
Your approach is too rationalistic. Apparent contradictions are the bread and butter of Buddhism.
Edit, more context:
The historical Buddha spoke to a crowd of people who took rebirth as a matter of fact because steeped in Hinduism and in folk belief.
But in fact if you read between the lines, rebirth doesn’t agree with the doctrine of anatta (if everything is empty, what is there to be reborn?) and anicca (if nothing is permanent, how can there be anything that survives death?). Moreover, reflection about the future self (hence what happens after death) is deemed as one of the unwise reflections.
This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’
So as you see, scratch beneath the surface and belief in reincarnation (although very common due to familiarity with Hinduism) is not encouraged. But see the idea of rebirth more as a psychological framework (i.e. hell is being possessed by anger, etc.) and much will start to make sense.
Yes except the wording in the Pali Canon is “upon dissolution of the body” which is pretty clear that rebirth is not purely psychological or within the human lifetime. It is after death. Also doesn’t explain the Buddha discussing his previous lives.
Sorry but I have heard this secular apologetics before. The contradiction between Anatta and Rebirth can not be resolved.
Sure, literalism. Many authoritative interpreters (see Buddhagosa) take reincarnation literally.
But other equally authoritative interpreters take a more nuanced position, which I think is more useful.
I think you’re missing the point of what Buddhism is or does if you get hung up on what may or may not have been the historical Buddha’s words, pronounced 2500 years ago and not written down until after about 500 years. But rejecting anatta (which, contrary to rebirth, is universal in Buddhism) because you want to hold to the idea of rebirth seems as unwise as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As to me, I choose to be a pragmatist rather than a literalist. I see the Dharma as a tool for the here and now, and it is indifferent to me whether we’re going to live again or not, in addition to not making sense.
Call me secular, I don’t care. In the end it’s one’s own choice and path.
Good luck.
Right you can do this. Every religion pretty much does. Our founder said a bunch of stuff. We only take the parts that we want.
I am not faulting people for doing this, my point is you can’t claim that what is discarded isn’t part of what was there. Yes, you can be a secular Buddhist but that won’t change at all that the practice of Buddhism for 25 centuries included and still includes literal gods. And I question if you can even call it Buddhism if it doesn’t have rebirth.
Shrug. It’s a bit weird to me. Like latecomers gatekeeping. They been doing their thing for 25 centuries and a bunch of westerners show up and tell them what Buddhism is really really about. With the justification that since the record keeping was bad it can be whatever we say it is. Meanwhile the culture tradition being borrowed from is clear and in disagreement with what Secular Buddhist claims it says.
Mara is not a metaphor to anyone before the year 1950 or so. Mara was a literal god. Same can be said about all their core concepts.
If you can’t be someone better tell all those tens of millions of followers in South East Asia who are syncretist with ancestor worship, multiple Hindu gods, and local animism.
Removed by mod
Introducing the Ba’hai religion: My religion is true because all the other religions are true.
The religious equivalent of an AND operator lol.
Zen Buddhist here. If your religion makes you feel a type of way then it’s working. I know this table is real because I see and feel it. Relationships to religion are a personal experience and I’m not here to tell judge you about the validity of it. We all good homie
Not entirely true as Islam requires Christianity and Judaism to be correct to some extent for their religion to be true.
I count as religious and I’m not like that.
Raised Catholic, but half my family is Jewish. Almost a running joke at family functions when the conversation turns to religion and we’re all like “Yeah, you guys got close enough, idk at least we’re not Scientologists.”
Can relate. I was raised without anything specific in mind, one day came back to them (I spent my childhood in different places) having forgotten I am now denominational for a very not-very-discussed denomination, and they make the same joke, “well if it protects her from things like Scientology, it’s a godsend if you ask me.”
deleted by creator
I’m not sure i want these pedophiles in our bathrooms
Well yeah doubt they’d be into their current religion if they didn’t believe that it was true
