Do religions have PR departments? What are they supposed to do when people do damaging things and associate themselves with a religion when they do it?

And is it wrong to say that religion is not inherently theistic? I always tell self proclaimed "atheists" that a belief in a higher power has absolutely nothing to do with anything they're typically against and that all the bullshit they're mad about is the result of bad people, not any of the religions themselves.

Am I allowed to assume that anyone who says God isn't real because there's no proof of God is an idiot because they can't grasp the concept of a faith based system?

does the prophet muhammad browse 99chan's IRC

where do we go when we die

>Do religions have PR departments?

Abso-fucking-lutely they do. I mean, at least religious organizations do. Asking whether or not religion does is like asking whether or not politics has a PR department. The Catholics in particular talk about how to make their shit look better all the time, and all the different Cardinal fraternities disagree just as they do about everything. The problem is access, like usual. There are a shitload of Muslim leaders trying to drown out various extremist sects, but if you don't speak English and can't articulate in a way that westerners can relate to and understand, then it goes unheard.

>And is it wrong to say that religion is not inherently theistic?

"What is a religion" is the most fundamental question in when talking about religion. It's not a universal truth but I define religion as a shared set of beliefs and respect for something they consider sacred rather than a unified beliefs in gods specifically. So in other words, I could define it as unified reverence. This is a fairly common definition, and includes pretty much everything we consider religion, without also including things like politics. Some government-cults start to resemble religion simply because they take the policies/personalities so seriously it becomes sacred, and they are either voluntarily or forced to participate in it as a unified group. So no, not wrong. A broader question of whether atheists count as a religion is more complicated, but using the above definition, they would not qualify, because while they do hold a unified belief, they have no implied shared reverence. An atheist can still think science is bull honky and think Darwin was a twat.

>Am I allowed to assume that anyone who says God isn't real because there's no proof of God is an idiot because they can't grasp the concept of a faith based system?

Faith is sometimes defined as belief without proof or reason, but most people would not put faith in a complete stranger. Most people have faith in religious explanations of the world and stories because those stories are relatable, inspirational, or simply make sense in their minds. The problem with the Russel's Teapot and its derivatives is that it's random and lacks relatable context.

In my conversations with atheists I try this exercise in, well lying. You're late for work, you say that you're late because of traffic. Everyone rolls their eyes, even if it's 100% true. But then try adding little details: before I got to work I spilled coffee on my shirt and had to change it, then I got a call from my sister because she needs someone to take her kids to school, then someone parked in my spot so I had to go to the far end of the lot... it starts sound a bit more believable, if nothing else. Now start adding flowery details disconnecting from you trying to lie about work- say the person who stole your spot is a new, pretty employee, and right when you go to chew them out you stop and instead chat with them, and decide to go out on a date. You've taken it from an outright lie based on the truth (you were late for work one day) and turned it into the beginning of a potentially funny and heartwarming story.

I wouldn't accuse everyone who simply wants to derive meaning or purpose from the observable universe an idiot, but I think some of those people do underestimate or misunderstand what religion is, why people believe in it, and how it can be useful or even fun.

>>72014
It could be because god is either indifferent to the troubles of 99chan or it is because we have offended god in some way and thus he is making traffic on the board languish.

>>72015
The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ascended to heaven in the 7th century AD according to Muslims, and will not return to Earth until the last judgement at the end times. We are not currently in the end times, as we have not even reached the first stage when the Mahdi, the great redeemer of Islam, has revealed themselves. If they are not correct, then Muhammad (pbuh) has been dead all of this time and is not coming back. Therefore, there is a 0% chance that Muhammad (pbuh) is an active member of this website's IRC channel.

>>72016
Depends on what you mean by "we". If "we" is our bodies and thinking selves, then we are going in the ground, burnt up, cut up by scientists, buried at sea, etc. In any case, "we" cease to exist, and our souls (if they exist) transcend our current state.

Is the Judo-Christian God truly omnipotent, omnipresent, etc? Truly all knowing and all seeing? And if so why does he seem to have this fetish for testing us? Shouldn't he know if we're going to succumb to temptation or whatever?

Also is Satan a renegade archangel who wanted to overthrow God or simply the overseer of hell who does his job because he has to?

Why do left wingers denounce Christianity constantly for their treatment of gays and women, but handle Islam with kid gloves, when they treat gays and women way worse?

>>72019

Left winger here. The way many people that are Muslim treat gays and women is reprehensible, and we should strive to eliminate that oppression where possible. At the same time, I don't believe Islam is inherently the problem. Christianity has no shortage of violent passages in the Old Testament where the Tribes of Israel commit genocide and rape, but most Christians I've met aren't into that kind of thing. Likewise, the problems with Islam aren't problems with Islam - they're cultural problems with people that are impoverished and lack education, and they do not apply to all sects. Many Muslims are very progressive and are in full support of women's and LGBT rights. Many are not.

Saying "MUSLIMS ARE BAD" is ignorant and doesn't do anything to solve the problems that make certain modern day incarnations of Islam problematic. Likewise, I don't personally know any left wingers that say "All Christians are at fault" - it's generally specific sects or churches with specific beliefs we're looking at.

>>72018
The religious explanation is that God wants us to be fulfilled to and know our true meaning, and having no hardship or difficulty means that we don't ever truly understand that meaning. That our lives and how much we have is meaningless, the only thing that matters is our loyalty and devotion to God, and through that devotion we will find a place by his side in the kingdom of Heaven.

>>72019
It's more of a socio-political question, but I know the answer anyway, it's because Muslims in the west are a vulnerable minority. Now amount of atheists taking a dumb on Christianity and calling it a death cult is going to result in the wholesale marginalization and oppression of Christians. However, historically speaking, whenever a majority population starts saying a minority population is inherently violent, bad, disruptive, criminal, etc. it always ends badly, whether that was the intention or not.

But even then a lot of atheists regardless of political alignment will take dumps on Islam. I don't think it's unreasonable to say "we don't want innocent Muslims being rounded up in camps because of what IS is doing on the other side of the world."

I do think "left-wingers" as you might put them should still criticize human rights abuses and attacks on minorities in Muslim-dominated countries (and as someone who subscribes to Avaaz like a truth slacktivist, they're pretty big on highlighting that stuff), but the fear is that even if we just harp on what is happening in other countries too much, it could lead to unwarranted anti-Muslim violence here.

>>72017
Is Paradise Lost canon?
Even if it isn't why don't angels get to be free?

And how can you explain to people that religion has nothing against science or medicine? I'm getting tired of explaining why the church was the greatest thing ever in the "dark" ages and was the source of many major medical advancements.

Also where does one go to hook up with priests?

Do all furries go to hell?

>>72022
Paradise Lost itself is not canon but one could say that it is based on Jewish mythology detailing troubles regarding angels fraternizing with humans and generally rebelling against god. It seems apparent that angels have free will, but were made with some kind of inner insight into the nature of god and need to do nothing to get into the kingdom of Heaven, unlike humans. The book of Enoch (only recognized as canon by the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church and some non-mainstream Jews) goes into this in detail, and might have been at least part of the inspiration, even if Paradise Lost is not really all that similar.

Trying to separate what is and isn't canonical can be confusing but not really hard, sometimes non-canonical ideas are used by religious people as ways to explain or justify things that aren't fully explained. The "problem of Hell" is one in particular that is hard without a broader explanation you see in Dante's work. Milton's work in particular is seen more as strictly allegorical fan fiction.

It is certainly true that the church, being the biggest and arguably most authoritative institution in medieval Europe, was also the biggest patron of science, along with art and other such things. Many scientists were indeed devout, not atheists who were just pretending. They felt like studying the natural world in full detail was the closest one could get to god, to realize his glory and majesty. They saw the church's teachings in their observations.

This was a phenomena that wasn't contained to Christianity either, for much of what Europeans call the "dark ages" (which really weren't that bad), the Islamic world was plowing forth in great strides in the world of science, mathematics, chemistry, etc. You look at how much work went into people trying to figure out which was to turn in order to be turning toward Mecca to pray.

This largely ignores the rest of the world, though. It's not like you NEED strong religious institutions to advance science, as we can see from China, India, and other non-Abrahamic regions.

This changed and became a religio-political issue entirely in the 20th century with the widespread acceptance of evolutionary theory and the origin of the Earth and universe. These are two sides of the coin that are difficult to consolidate without basically saying entire swaths of the early Bible is just allegorical.

So science and religion aren't natural enemies, and certainly don't have to be. Getting people to accept that the two did and still can work together is something that is up to them, though.

Where and how to hook up with priests is a question I get asked a lot, and assuming that you're talking about Catholic priests/nuns that are required to be abstinent, the best place to go is probably a church. I mean really, they don't leave church very often, that's sort of the point. Negging doesn't work so don't try it. You'll need some serious game to cross the finish line with one, unless you're young and nubile. Trying to find the vulnerable ones that show some obvious frustration with their lifestyle is probably the easiest route.

>>72027
What about just platonic stuff? Could they spoon you and whatnot?

I want to spank a nun, age doesn't matter, endless bonus points if she's somehow asian or speaks any foreign language.

I want to cook a nice dinner with a young priest and then fall asleep on the couch with him watching some movie.

>>72023
If they Jews/Muslims are right they almost certainly do, though it all comes down to how seriously they believe it. Some interpretations of Christianity allow everyone to get into heaven so long as they repent for their sins, so, you know. Probably though.

>>72028
It's not against the rules, at that point it's up to the individual to see how they feel about it.

>>72029
Your best bet is Koreans, they have the biggest east Asian Christian community, if I recall right. You could always bag yourself a Japanese Christian, they come with all the kinky shit pre-programmed.

>>72030
It takes a while to become a full-fledged priest so they spend most of their youngest years getting educated before getting ordained. Catholic priests tend to be pretty tight bros with each other though, so being one is best chance of being tight with one and getting inside one.

>>72031
How do you know so much about all this stuff?
Can priests use drugs?

>>72032
I had an irregular religious experience when growing up, with my father being Catholic, my mother being Methodist (Catholic lite), and because of my location I grew up around hardcore independent Christians, baptists, Amish/Mennonite, and even a Mormon at one time. One of my best friends in middle school was an Indonesian-American Muslim. I never really felt enamored by Christianity and basically learned a lot about most world religions in my attempt to find one that really "suited" me, besides just calling myself an atheist. I read the Bible along with studying some non-canon Jewish texts, the Koran, even Book of Mormon (that's a fun one). After studying and reading about the various Dharmic religions, I settled on Zen Buddhism, even found a local Tai Chi instructor who could offer some wisdom. I didn't go to school for it or anything, but it's not exactly hard to get hordes of information on religion and religious topics. When looking at religion in their specific historical contexts, it becomes a rather fun thing to study, and a lot of it becomes a lot clearer and easier to understand.

Generally priests and Christians in general are told not to get to addicted to mind-altering substances, to not foul up the body or the mind... however because Jesus himself drank wine this creates a conflict. Generally the Bible to doesn't expressly outlaw drugs, then again it's hard to say how much they knew about them or how much access they had to them. But I could certainly see some liberal Catholics who wouldn't have a problem with priests smoking the ganj.

>>72033
That's really cool of you.
I don't think I'll ever be able to be really close friends with a priest, but it's nice to think about.
and about that paradise lost thing, what I was really interested in was the lucifer part, I really like the idea of him just being an angel who wanted God to love him as much as he loved man but I don't want to come off as some edgy devil worshiper.

>>72034
Right, in the aforementioned Book of Enoch, there is a certain group of angels who did grow very jealous of humanity and god's attachment to humanity, and went down to have sex with humans in order to produce giants. God didn't take that very well.

Paradise Lost is a great story, and can examine the potentially destructive power of love and devotion, and/or what it truly means to be devoted. If you love someone and become so attached to them, but they don't reciprocate and marry someone else, it is not uncommon for people to become envious, and that envy can lead to problems. If you wish to see the religious stories as just fun, allegorical stories that help put our own troubles in different perspectives and examine them, then Paradise Lost can be as large a contribution to that as any story in the Bible.

>>72034
Does it have to be a Catholic priest? It is possible for Orthodox and Anglican clergy to be married and therefore they might be a little more relaxed and bro-tier about some of these things (with the caveat that Orthodox bishops and other high-ranking clergy are typically selected from the ranks of monastic clergy who are bound by most of the same rules as Catholic priests and monks).

>>72010
Can you explain to me the whole trinity thing? There's like a special philosophical term for the whole father-son-holy-ghost thing and what exactly they are all to one and another. I'm interested in what Jesus is too because that's related. It's the one philosophical thing in religion where I look at it and just don't even know what the fuck is going on.

Oh another question: What do you think of the current biblical canon? Are there some gospels you think should be in that aren't? Are there some you think shouldn't be in? I remember reading that Martin Luther wanted to take out a bunch of stuff from the New Testament. Also a lot of the other christian churches don't have the book of revelations included in the canon. Martin Luther wanted to take out the book of revelations too I think. Why do people hate the book of revelations?

Yesterday I got to encounter some Hare Krishnas spreading books about their religion. Admittedly, as far as aggressively proselytizing faiths go, I'm more used to seeing that from Christian sects like the Mormons, JWs, and Chick tract-flinging fundamentalists that tend to have, shall we say, idiosyncratic interpretations of some of their scriptures.

To what extent are Hare Krishnas like that in relation to the rest of "mainstream" Hinduism, if there even is such a thing?

>>72021
>>72018 here. So basically he made us so we could suffer through life and become his cheerleaders?

If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys and why is 99chan still 99chan and not evolved into a greater website like Twitter or what have you? Why does original sin prevent me from masturbating, mom? Lastly, who would win in a fight, Muhammad or Muhammad Ali?

>>72036
I wouldn't call Orthodox priests more bro-like than Catholics simply because I'm not entirely sure what they're like within their safe spaces the same way I've had experience with Catholic clergy. The rules on marriage and relationships are a lot more open in Orthodox, but they're still not allowed to get married after they are ordained. It's only when you get to the high ranks to people need to be celibate.

Really protestantism is the place to go if you want to have closer relationships with people, as there aren't many restrictions. With highly organized Christianity of any kind it's more of a matter of luck and finding the right people. They're mostly just friends with each other.

>>72037
Probably the thing that confuses people about the trinity the most is the holy spirit and exactly what the role of the whole thing is. Christianity is sometimes defined as an expansion of Judaism, but it actually redefines many core concepts. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is considered as a separate entity from the "Father", the creator of everything, etc. Jesus was added into the mix as the semi-mortal messiah of humanity. The trinity means that when people are praying to "God" or referring to him, they are not praying to just one entity but rather all three. Conversely, it also suggests that all three of them ARE the same entity in three incarnations and identities. If you wanted to, one could even claim that the hardcoreness of the Old Testament was because most of the interactions were with the Father, whereas the interactions in the New Testament were mostly with the Holy Spirit. It's also why Muslims sometimes claim Christianity is polytheistic while Christians maintain that they're monotheistic and they're both kinda right.

According to modern Christians, Jesus is both the son of God and the messiah, a man who was divine (whereas the rest of God is divine but not man). Whether or not Jesus was truly the "son" of God was a point of contention in early Christianity, but you could say that most things were points of contention in early Christianity.

>>72038
ballza question. People act like the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other old books means we have to rethink Biblical canon. The fact is that the people who compiled the canon we used today likely knew about these books, even maybe had more intact copies of them.

The canon of the Old Testament had a few different reasons: not just to provide a philosophical and religious text, but also to provide a history of the Hebrews from the beginning to the rise and fall of the Israelite kingdom.

When deciding which books to include in Christianity, it's a bit more difficult, because it's meant to be strictly a religious and philosophical work. The only issue after that becomes historical verifiability. Much of the New Testament is Peter's writings and letters, in which he lays the foundation for the organized and "true" religion based on Jesus' teachings, so it is considered very important in relation to the gospels. It's easy to deride the religious scholars and just putting in the stuff that they wanted people to know, but in reality they were most concerned with the historical record. It was easier to tell which documents were authentic and which ones were fraudulent or simply didn't have a lot of copies made. It was a chaotic time when anyone could write something and claim it to be from the time of Jesus. Muslims have similar and bitter fights over Hadiths.

So the criteria for the New Testament was mostly 1) whether it contributes any greater understanding of Christianity not already contributed and 2) had a ballza bit of historical evidence to verify its authenticity. So in this sense, I would say instead of adding stuff that are very hard to truly verify, I would side with those that want to reduce the number of books in the NT in order to keep the message of the NT more streamlined and less confusing.

Revelation is a point of contention quite simply because it's really fucking weird and it's a big turn into left field from what was a Christian message of devotion and charity and compassion to Jesus literally sword fighting with demons while we all watch. The reason why it's considered important by the mainstream is because many early Christians did believe that Jesus would be coming back for Armageddon, and as such it is considered a mainstream belief and why it was included in the canon. From a historical perspective, St. John wrote it while in hiding on the Greek island of Patmos when he was close to 90 years old, leaving some to believe it was more the product of senility. A more modern perspective suggests that it is provocative anti-Roman propaganda cloaked in fantastical metaphor. The Beast of the Sea has seven heads, Rome is the city of seven hills, the Whore of Babylon wears purple, the Roman emperor wears purple, etc.

Many people including Martin Luther may not have liked it too much because it was the one book used most often as a cudgel during his time, and it's so uncharacteristic of the rest of the works it just doesn't feel like it belongs.

Would I keep it in? It's tricky, simply because taking it out means you're basically taking out Armageddon and the world ending from the Biblical canon. If you take it purely metaphorically, you could say that John's Apocalypse has already happened, with the Fall of Emperor Nero and the wider pagan Roman Empire, it's civil war between the faithful and the pagans, and the "new Jerusalem" being Constantinople. It's a bit of Texas Sharpshooter, though.

>>72039
Because of the decentralized nature of Hinduism and most Dharmic religions, it's pretty easy for someone to create offshoots. Hare Krishnas are hardly mainstream, but it's not really what they believe, it's how they believe it. Two people can believe the exact same thing but one can be a hermit and the other can be someone who shoves their beliefs into people's faces at the airport. In many ways, the Hare Krishna movement was influenced by western religion and Evangelism, even a way to try and package Hinduism in a way more easily understood by westerners, though in the process it starts to feel more like a fringe cult. But to answer the question directly, no, Hare Krishna is not really a major sect of Hinduism outside of the US, and you certainly don't have to act like one to follow Hinduism.

>>72040
If you think of the relationship between God and humans more literally like a traditional father-child relationship, it might make more sense. Particularly, the relationship a father might have with their 20 something child. The child has freedom, can make decisions, but the parents still want them to make the right choices. The whole point is not to suffer for God (though Job got the sharp end of that stick), it's to follow God's laws so you can have a fulfilled and less shitty life, and when shitty stuff happens you'll be able to handle it. Similar to how a father might want you to follow their advice. The story of Job runs into this conflict directly. Job had a lot of shit and God took it away to prove a point to Satan, and he basically said "well, the lord gave me this shit, so I shouldn't complain too much when it goes away." The whole idea is that we should be grateful for the gift of life, free will, and the various other gifts god gives us, and we shouldn't only be grateful when things are going ballza.

What do you think the pope's private life is like?

>>72045
Related question: Who is your favorite pope
Also, who is your favorite catholic saint?

>>72046
if OP doesn't say jesus malverde or gertrude de nivelle he's a big bundle of sticks

Answer my question, you godless fuck. >>72043

>>72043
People don't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans have common ancestors, some adapted into humans others into several other species of primate. 99chan likely hasn't evolved because it has no interest in evolving into a website with novel features and a broad audience. Original sin doesn't really prevent you from masturbating. The ancient Jews probably looked down on it because people could get fixated on self-gratification, just like they could get addicted to sex and other pleasures. In a fight with boxing rules it would certainly be Muhammad Ali, street rules still Muhammad Ali, but with no rules and no restrictions then the prophet Muhammad could just call down the wrath of God or something.

>>72045
The pope doesn't have a wealth of private time I imagine, but it's likely simple and not far off from what your average person does. Especially since the current pope is so chill. Reading, watching whatever Italian TV shows, stuff like that. The current one denied having a lavish apartment.

>>72046
My favorite pope is probably the current one. I wish I could do the histo-hipster thing and choose an awesome pope from history, but that's just the problem. We simply don't know a lot about many popes from olden times, and when meticulous history was being kept on them, it was mostly boring shit about ecumenical fights that didn't ultimately matter much. When a pope did to something that "made history", it usually wasn't something terribly positive. Compared to the current pope who has made great strides in significantly improving the optics of the church, addressing real problems that previous popes didn't have the balls to even acknowledge, and being an all-around cool guy that doesn't take himself super seriously, as far as popes go.

My favorite Saint would probably have to be Joan of Arc, again, not the most fringe or non-mainstream choice. I find her story to be particularly fascinating, and it only becomes more interesting when you learn some of the smaller details, like how she was able to essentially outsmart the court.

>>72050
>joan of arc
>not one of the saints with ridiculous stories like saint nick who brought a barrel of dead pickled children back to life

  why is all christian music so shitty apart from gregorian chants?

>>72051
That would be a cool story about St. Nick if it were a true, unfortunately like a lot of legendary figures people made up stories about him centuries after the fact. Whereas a peasant girl taking over France when she was like 17 is a matter of historical fact.

how aren't christians constantly grieving the fact that a huge portion of humanity (likely including some of their friends and loved ones) will go to hell? Shouldn't believing that give the average person panic attacks?

why do people believe in religion?

>>72053
Yeah Joan of Arc is one of those instances where God's intervention is actually more believable than the alternative. The alternative being that a teenage girl just woke up one day and decided to lead a huge army across France, and actually did it.

Your choice of pope is a bit dissapointing, mostly cause I wanted to learn about other cool popes. I'm sure there must have been some ballza popes. Was the pope actively involved in the counter reformation when that happened? Cause that was ballza, I mean it was more just stopping priests from being gluttonous bundle of stickss but it was a positive turn.

Next question: What's up with Christian mysticism? I've heard that orthodox churches tend to be much more mystical than other western churches, but like how does that work. Do they meditate and try to understand God or what?

>>72052
Probably for the same reason a lot of pop music sucks in general, because it has no edge. Most of rock music got popular because it crossed boundaries, and the emotions that come with it. Much of the popular bands in the Christian music genre just end up making simple songs with lyrics that appeal to young evangelicals. Thus, non-young-evangelicals will find it corny and stupid just as they might find songs about sex to be crass and offensive.

>>72054
The short answer is that they are. Have you ever tried to say that you're an atheist or simple non-Christian to a devout Christian you might know well? They tend to look sad and almost desperate to get you to become one. Knowing that much of the world will never see heaven is disconcerting to them.

Then there's those that simply think that everyone ballza will get into heaven regardless of their religion. This is a bit of a "pick and choose" Christian. Fundamentalists might rebut by saying that no one is truly "ballza" enough because we're all pre-made with original sin, and no matter how super duper we are during life, no one is perfect enough to get into heaven based on actions alone, only with Jesus' help and love and acceptance can we make it there.

There's also an interpretation that says that hell really isn't as bad as many people paint it as, a place where demons will rape you with barbs for eternity. God's not sadistic and enjoys seeing his children suffer. It's just a place defined as "not heaven" and some people might face eternal punishment for their sins, while others it might not be so bad. This aligns with what Jews tend to believe about hell, that it's not heaven. Jesus doesn't paint hell as a great place, however, which complicates things.

The "problem of hell" is a common issue and the subject of a lot of disillusionment and debate.

>>72057
I think the two main reasons (that relate to one another) come down to 1) Life is seemingly meaningless and that sucks and 2) People often don't know how to act and think and want guidance.

The second one is most important in relation to ancient times. Today we tend to see things like "don't murder, steal, assault, etc," as givens, like we're pre-programmed with those morals. But they're really just a set a rules cultivated over long periods of time meant to keep order in society. But then there's the smaller things, like what should I eat/drink in order to not get sick, is having sex all the time really a ballza idea, etc. The old Jewish laws sort of make a lot of sense in this context, they just took an absolutist approach with it. Having sex with one person would ensure that you don't get VD, eating pork can make you sick, so just don't fucking eat it. The the problem is this practical wisdom is hard for people to swallow from just some old guy, so various theologies have been constructed as a way to give it some more authority. Either it was from god himself or ancient wisdom of people who were a lot smarter than you.

People still look for guidance though, and that's where ancient religions can lose their luster and credibility, religious teachers of all kinds find themselves having to contort ancient teachings in order to fit into problems ancient peoples couldn't even conceive of.

>>72058
Yeah unfortunately studying papal history doesn't give one a terribly positive view of the position. Popes were ultimately politicians and puppets for much of history, and even the big reformers like Gregory VII excommunicated people for political reasons and is largely known for embroiling himself in politics as well as being embroiled.

It's not that papal history isn't interesting, it just means you have to compare and evaluate popes not based on their real contributions to the faith, but compare and evaluate them as one might kings of a country, and indeed, the Pope was the king of the Papal States for a long time. Only more in modern times do we have enough information about popes and can examine them fully.

The counter-reformation is often misunderstood solely as the Catholics cleaning up their act, and while that was part of it with elimination of corruption and blatant profiteering, in some ways it also made the Catholics even more fundamentalist in some ways. So as most things in history, there's the ballza and the bad, and it's also hard to pick out one pope in particular from that era, many of them had some role to play in the Council of Trent and various reforms. You could say Pius V was the biggest figure, he was a big fan of Thomas Aquinas but he also expelled many Jews from the Papal States and reaffirmed many hard line stances on heresy.

Some popes were likely gay, there might have even been a secret woman. There were debates and battles over nepotism, but no one pope eliminated corruption and it's hard to put one over the other. It's the same with patronage of the arts and science, some popes did others didn't.

Pope Innocent XI is cool to me because he didn't put the preservation of Catholicism over everything else, even siding more with William of Orange, because of how heavy-handed James II was with his attempt to restore Catholicism. A surprisingly principled stance for popes, but not that far-reaching or impactful.

Pope Pius X sheltered refugees in the Vatican from an flood when the Italian government wasn't doing anything, so that was pretty cool. Pius XI was a renowned mountain climber and didn't care much for racism, which makes him cool on two fronts. Pius XII, the pope of WWII, who is complicated because on one hand he kept the Vatican neutral during the war and while Jews were being subjugated (though most of the world was just standing by as well), but he also secretly helped the German resistance and tried to use the clergy in Germany to sow discord. Could have done more, but the same could be said for pretty much anyone. Nazis weren't shy about their hatred of the Vatican so it's not like them trying to incite Catholics in Germany would have done much more.

Christian mysticism is an interesting field to me simply because it does apply some common eastern tradition, consciously or unconsciously, to Christianity. Meditation in most circumstances is used to gain a higher understand of one's self, and Christian mystics use it to attain a higher understanding of God, and is generally considered to be intense and long prayer. It has the most tradition in Orthodox churches, but isn't without its detractors. It shouldn't be confused with speaking in tongues or various other non-traditional practices in Christianity, though I suppose they can be considered related in some ways.

Does a dog really have the Buddha nature?

>>72061
Buddha-nature has different meanings depending on the sect. In Zen Buddhism, Buddha-nature is simply the nature of impermanence, everything including rocks and sand and grass and universe have it because everything is impermanent. In other sects the answer is still usually yes, since all living things can be teachers in dharma, all living things have buddha-nature, and can attain enlightenment. Other, more fundamental sects generally consider buddha-nature to be something that humans possess before they are born, and attachment is how we lose it.

However, it is easy to forget all that when the little shithead pisses on the carpet.

Christian here.

One of the things that informs my faith and ultimately made me decide to look into Christianity again after I started to believe in God is the plethora of absolutely brilliant Christians, particularly philosophers. The kind of people that shook the world with their thought alone were also extremely religious and there's a wealth of evidence to support this. Kant, Descartes, St. Thomas, Hegel, Kierkegaard, the most profound and interesting philosophers would seem borderline psychotic if they were alive today (especially Kierkegaard). I could even go as far as to include Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, considering how deeply they influenced christian theology, as sort of proto-Christians; I rationalize this by their emphasis on faith in God, particularly Socrates.

However, when I look upon the great Muslim philosophers, there's not a damn thing interesting there. Even the ones that influenced important christian philosophers seem absolutely boring because there's no way for me not to compare them to their Christian counterparts. Similarly, Jewish philosophers don't provoke my interest much, but a couple recent philosophers I at least want to read more about are/were Jewish. Eastern philosophers are almost unilaterally nonsense.

How do you account for this? I have my own beliefs about this, but first I want to hear your (probably retarded) theory.

Hard mode: you can't invoke socioeconomic situations, accuse me of prejudice or try to argue Islamic philosophers are worthwhile.

Humanity is a single massive organism. Gods may be referred to as the collective self awareness of all humanity.

When miracles happen it is simply macro scale algorithms being mistaken for autonomous processes. Religion is akin to a data virus.

What is the best way of conversting someone to christianity? Do chick tracts work?

>>72065
Assuming that English is your native and sole language and that you're from the west, probably the most likely scenario is that there is a shortage of quality translations of Islamic philosophical writings. Even when western/Catholic Christian philosophers did not speak English, their stuff was studied by English scholars, translated and re-translated and different meanings were derived by a variety of linguists and their work has been discussed and studied and taught. Not only is the west decidedly not influenced much by Islamic or middle eastern culture and as such we don't have as many frames of reference for their philosophy, but Arabic/Persian along with other languages are quite foreign, harder to translate, both in meaning and in tone. The same problem afflicted many Chinese/east Asian philosophies, readable and enjoyable versions of writings like the Tao Te Ching are somewhat recent, many scholarly versions were literal translations useful only to scholars. This could very well be the case with Jewish/Orthodox/Muslim philosophy, with less of the people who truly know the material have a real command of the English language that is masterful enough to convey the same messages in an enjoyable and interesting way. Conversely, people who speak English natively and try to translate these things can often miss nuance and a real command of the language they're trying to translate, so it comes out drab and uninspired. Some would accuse the NKJVof that when you compare them to the original texts.

I'm not sure if that counts as a socioeconomic argument, but it might explain it adequately enough.

>>72065
>Eastern philosophers are almost unilaterally nonsense.
Confucius say: You big bundle of sticks.

Hermann Hesse is generally regarded as some German guy who wrote about Eastern ideas in a way that people coming from a Western background can understand. Read some of his things maybe.

  >>72052
fuck off

Why is it that some religions have faded into obscurity while others have spread across the world? Is there some quality in certain religions that makes them more popular than others?

>>72073
It helps if your religion is the official one of some big empire. A ballza religion is one that answers the big questions in some satsifying way, makes people feel ballza for believing in it, and isn't specific to one exact culture or race. That's one of the reasons you don't see a lot of racially-specific religions. Judaism could be considered one with a very orthodox reading, in some ways it was a religion that defined itself to a certain tribe of people which hampered its spread and allowed competitors. Christianity spread because there was a bit of a belief vacuum in Asia Minor. There was the Greek gods of course, which had been more or less stolen by the Romans, but they never appealed to many commoners. Mesopotamian religion was also similar. You have a zillion gods and they're all fighting for some reason and none of it relates to you much, but then there's this new one that relates to you more and even has a cool story filled with drama attached to it.

Islam spread partially for socioeconomic reasons, the entire region was run by a collection of corrupt local despots who cared nothing for the multitude of poor folk, and again with the polytheistic gods being unhelpful. Islam, probably more than any other religion, stresses charity as one of its main tenants. So naturally a bunch of poor people would gravitate to a religion that required rich people to give them money. The rather impressive spread of Islam can be attributed to common folk basically being fed up with a large selection of wishy-washy local mystic traditions that endorsed horribly corrupt governors. It spread into western Africa because of an important African king named Mansa Musa, who was enormously rich but during his pilgrimage to Mecca it was said that he crashed the economy with runaway inflation due to how much of his gold he gave away.

Buddhism spread throughout Asia mostly due to Emperor Ashoka, who, like Constantine is believed to have converted or at least embraced Buddhism after a particularly deadly war he waged, and after he embraced it he became known as a merciful and competent and compassionate administrator, which made him popular and in turn helped Buddhism spread. Because of the flexibility of Buddhism, it was able to appeal to both Taoists and Confucianists in ancient China, which helped it spread further.

Meanwhile, culturally specific traditions such as Chinese mythology, Shinto, southeast Asian traditions, etc could never spread beyond their cultures, and today aren't even really taken too seriously by most of their own populaces.

>>72065
>absolutely brilliant Christians, particularly philosophers

Back in the day, wouldn't European people who claimed not to have been Christians have been ostracized? Society itself was heaviliy Christian and if you weren't a part of the religion, you weren't part of society itself.

>>72068
>probably the most likely scenario is that there is a shortage of quality translations of Islamic philosophical writings.

Haha

No

The language barrier doesn't excuse their philosophy from being fucking stupid.

The correct answer is that Islamic theology teaches a fundamentalist approach to exegis and anyone that attempts to deviate from a face-value interpretation of the Koran is beheaded, unless they're trying to explain how the Koran contains schematics for Apache helicopters. Since Bible Study in Islam translates to memorization, muslims are uppity as fuck and consider disagreement tantamount to apostasy. This does not make for ballza dialectic, and intellectually their religion is just straight-up incompatible with modern thinking. Hence the massive wave of reactionary islamism--they can't cope with reform like Christians did, shit doesn't process, the only two options are to embrace secularism and lose their religion entirely like the Jordanians or the turks, or become batshit lunatics.

>>72069

What, that hack that wrote Siddartha? That's high school core. There's nothing difficult to understand about eastern philosophy, it's just bullshit. No grounding in logic whatsoever. Completely useless to anyone outside that cultural tradition, and once you break from the religious/enculturation aspect, it all falls apart. Like, legalism is just straight up "forrow raws, or u shame famiry"

What kind of bullshit is that? That's not profound, a man named Stirner might even call that downright spooky

>>72074

Also rong

Doesn't account for the spread of early Christianity before the conversion of Constantine. Sure, there was a need for a religion to replace greco-roman polytheism, but why an allegedly-heretical offshoot of an ethnotribal religious sect that the state persecuted time and time again? Furthermore, how in the fuck did 4 guys spread the word of Christ and manage to convert so many heathens when they were forsaken by their own tribe, by the state, and the most significant of whom never even met Christ but still wrote half the new testament?

There was indeed a religious vacuum in Rome. The early Christians had many, many religions to compete with to replace the state religion. Mithraism in particular was very popular and would've been far more palatable to the Roman sensibilities. As far as the downtrodden and the damned, Cult of Isis offered the same comfort and redemption to the oppressed. Even more significant was Paul's triumph over Gnostic Christianity. Some sects drew heavily from Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras (like the early church ended up doing) and taught that Christ was God, but only appeared human, which would've made more sense than the trinity to your outside observer, especially a pagan.

>A ballza religion is one that answers the big questions in some satsifying way, makes people feel ballza for believing in it, and isn't specific to one exact culture or race

This is more or less the opposite of what Christianity does. Christians have to pray and think and ruminate on the big questions, most Christians that think they have the answer are recent evangelical cult members who've been misled by corrupt pastors--and pastor is an outdated profession anyway, those chucklefucks do nothing but dumb down the wisdom of God. CS Lewis once said, "I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity"

Christianity is probably the scariest religion out there because it's the only one where you face a realistic chance of eternal damnation. There's a lot of people that don't take the Lord's word in its proper gravity. Muslims believe that, eventually, everybody will be purified in hell (aside from polytheists I think, which includes Christians) and end up in paradise after a while, and Jews believe you'll either face eternal slumber or be judged ballza and be arisen when the Messiah turns out. And furthermore, both religions are extremely orthopraxic and you can wind up in God's favor by basically being a ballza dude. Not as much as if you hadn't been such a fuckin Takfir, but nonetheless.

This is not the case in Christianity. The only way to the Father is through Him, and if you don't believe Christ is the Lord, Son of God, savior of Man, son of the virgin Mary and died on the cross for our sins, you're fucked. This is the wickedness of original sin, of free will, that if we make the wrong choice--or if we even just don't make the right choice in the right way--then we have nobody else to point fingers at, there was nobody preventing us from reading the Testaments and worshipping Christ.

As far as the spread of Islam, it's pretty funny that you mention the emphasis on alms instead of the fact that Mohammad was a fucking warlord who founded a massive empire through conquest. Quite frankly, I have no clue what you're even talking about--religious conversion was motivated principally by gibsmedats? That's absurd. Greed certainly was a factor, but it was more in the way of the need for a unified sociopolitical civilization that had a stable, common element spreading across multiple ethnic boundaries, a desire for social advancement in the caliphate, the balkanization and dissolution of local tribal religious modes and, natch, plagiarism of Christianity while spreading propaganda regarding its inception.

Yet it's Buddhism that you specifically point out as being perpetuated by an empire.
Wew lad Wew lad Wew lad Wew lad Wew lad Wew lad

>>72075

You could make that argument for some people.

Most philosophers though, their faith was way too deeply ingrained for that to make any sense whatsoever. Hegel was a priest all his life. Kant's entire philosophy is based on trying to explain God's ethics because he never seriously considered that they weren't right. Kierkegaard broke off from his fiance and died a virgin to commit himself to God.

Besides, there were plenty of people in those days that were outright atheists anyway but they called themselves deists to avoid getting hanged

Why hasn't anyone done anything about scientology?

>>72076
>The language barrier doesn't excuse their philosophy from being fucking stupid.

Unless that philosophy was mistranslated in the first place. Your understanding of anything from a foreign language is predicated on a quality translation. People believe that translation is 1:1 or something. Even the great ones still leave a lot of nuance out, hence why some will continue to assert that you can't truly understand some of the philosophers you pointed out without reading them in their original language.

At one time an expert from the Tao Te Ching looked like this:

Heaven and Earth are not humane
And regard the people as straw dogs
The sage is not humane
And regards all things as straw dogs

That translation is literally correct, but makes no fucking sense because the meaning (particularly of straw dog in this context) is not communicated. And as such, it's no secret why people thought it was dumb whereas works by Europeans that have been translated 50+ times over numerous centuries makes a bit more sense to them.

So... I disagree. I think you underestimate how much language can make a difference in this context.

I could just go with my original theory and say that you don't like them or understand them because you don't want to, but I still don't think it's that.

Islam is less flexible than Christianity though, no doubt. Christianity has this incompatibility with old Jewish laws while still claiming it is totes Judeo. Take the stoning of the whore, Jesus stopped them and said they were bad despite them literally following Jewish law. So is the Old Testament just... suggestions? Only there for historical reference? Still make up the backbone of Christianity? No matter what you believe, the Bible doesn't make it fucking clear. Jesus says all the old laws still apply, while he actively breaks them and claims they're all shit. Christianity is only less flexible because it is really vague.

So perhaps this is why philosophers are more interesting in Christianity, because Jesus and his disciples were so contradictory and unspecific that you can literally believe whatever the fuck you want, and so long as you put Jesus somewhere in it, you're a Christian. What you criticize about Islam is much of what gives it it's appeal to some people, you just can't start talking about transhumanism or whatever the fuck and people accept it as being related to religion when it's really not.

>Doesn't account for the spread of early Christianity before the conversion of Constantine.

I went through that with the spreading through Anatolia. Also, it wasn't just four guys, it's unsure exactly how many early Christians there were that actually followed Jesus but it probably wasn't just four. Most of those people had to GTFO of Dodge and lot of them went to Asia Minor, where Greek religion was relatively weak and there were many competitors. But it's not like Jesus performed miracles in front of their eyes, it still spread outside of Jewish areas by word of mouth and conversion, first with those whose beliefs were compatible with Christianity, some of which were not derived from Judaism. Then it spread farther in Greece over the next couple centuries, civil war, Constantine. If it weren't for Constantine, Christianity would still be a backwater religion like Zoroastrianism.

> Christians have to pray and think and ruminate on the big questions, most Christians that think they have the answer are recent evangelical cult members who've been misled by corrupt pastors--and pastor is an outdated profession anyway, those chucklefucks do nothing but dumb down the wisdom of God.

It's more about certainty than "having all the answers". Christianity is comforting because if your fucking kid gets gunned down by an aspie or police officer at least you can take some comfort that they're soul is going to fly off to heaven than simply going into the ground.

>This is not the case in Christianity. The only way to the Father is through Him, and if you don't believe Christ is the Lord, Son of God, savior of Man, son of the virgin Mary and died on the cross for our sins, you're fucked.

That's just the thing though, isn't it? Such a stark choice makes those who make the right choice feel gratified and enlightened and fulfilled, and they can safely look down on those who aren't.

Christianity is EASY, that's the point, and that's one of the reasons why it sticks so much. All you have to say is "lawdy lawdy I bin saved" and call it a fucking day, and you get a smug sense of satisfaction doing it. Whether or not it makes people feel ballza about being human is irrelevant.

Judaism and Islam are both hard. You actually have to act certain ways and follow laws and be a devoted servant, or fucking ELSE. We're not talking about some bullshit about after you die, you're gonna suffer in this life, bitch. Jesus didn't much like this, despite claiming to love it, for the same reason the rest of us don't today: it's brutal. Upholding god's laws here on Earth isn't a pretty business. Suggesting that God changed his mind on the whole thing suggests that God is and was never perfect, which is constantly asserting despite having a load of evidence to suggest that God made a shitload of mistakes.

>As far as the spread of Islam, it's pretty funny that you mention the emphasis on alms instead of the fact that Mohammad was a fucking warlord who founded a massive empire through conquest.

Why did Muhammad have followers in the first place, though? A general needs an army, and there's only so many cultists you can round up in your hometown before having to reach out to others. Enforcing your religion only goes so far. People were receptive to Islam and didn't mind being conquered by them in many cases because it was a whole lot better for them than the old tribal lords. The fact that the Caliphate became a prosperous and stable empire was only predicated on people buying into the religion to some extent. If that weren't the case, then there would be constant revolt and rebellion.

>Yet it's Buddhism that you specifically point out as being perpetuated by an empire.

Not sure if I'd say "perpetuated", certainly not single handedly. India still believes in many Dharmic traditions that are not Buddhism, after all. Buddhism's spread is long and complicated but there's no doubt that Ashoka's reign got the ball rolling in some ways.

Why were so many cults created in the 60's and 70's? It seems like there are a lot less of them today.

what is your opinion of satanic ritual abuse

>>72078
Because it was founded and flourished a in a country with freedom of religion. And they're ballza at keeping all the pedophilic shit on the DL.

>>72080
Liberal social movements gave way to people becoming rather disillusioned with traditional religion, so it became easier for people gravitate toward alternate concepts of god and religion. Cults just got a really bad reputation what with the mass suicides and murders and various other things. If it weren't for that stuff I still there would be more stuff like that today, and there is as far as Scientology and alternate forms of Christianity. Liberal Christianity really took off in the 60s/70s too, I have an old Bible called "The Way" which was a hippie writing of the Bible. It just illustrates the fundamental incompatibility of Abrahamic religions unless you really start redefining them into something completely different.

>>72081
It... doesn't exist in any significant capacity? LeVeyan Satanism is so corny and soft at most they do is nude altars. My understanding is that a lot of people got all sweaty about it at one time when D&D was accused of being satanist along with pretty much everything else that came out of the 70s.

What is your favorite religion?

Can you tell me the story of the protestant church from Martin Luther all the way to whatever the most common and contemporary denomination is?

Also what does ecumenical mean?

>>72089
That's an open question, I like some religions more because they are interesting and have interesting ideas and others because they are entertaining. Greek mythology can be entertaining simply because of the complicated relationships of the deities, and one can find some interest in the way the gods reflect the ballza and bad about humanity.

But I think the best mixture of the two is Mormonism, both in the actual belief system and the story/reception/social status of Mormonism today. Here you have a religion that probably has more in common with Islam than Christianity but yet is considered a sect of Christianity and accepted by most American Christians. Imagine if an entire state or even two states were dominated by Islam or any other world religion than Christianity.

Then you get into the actual beliefs, the fact that it's essentially polytheistic and that people are born dead and can keep having kids after they're dead and that stars are dead people. Shit that's so far out of the Abrahamic mainstream that it's truly strange how it was ever embraced or tolerated even in small capacities. I know Mormonism basically evolved to downplay and more or less ignore the less palatable parts of their religion, but goddamn. One of those motherhooligans was one secret video clip away from becoming President, and all those people losing their minds because they read that Obama might be Muslim were totally okay with it.

Then you take into account that the whole thing was transparently made up. I'm not sure if that makes it my favorite but like the South Park douchebags I sort of fell to allure.

>>72090
I'll answer the second question first, since it's easier to answer, because the first question is a doozy.

"Ecumenical" is a term that literally refers to the entirety of Christendom, however its use in history is a bit contradictory. Ecumenical councils were called to try and settle matters of church doctrine and practices, but they were almost never called with eastern Orthodox churches and such. When it's used the term is just meant to mean issues of the church at the highest levels, as opposed to disputes between clergy in more localized areas, or within particular sub-sects. Now, onto the first question.

By the time Martin Luther came around the western Church had become a huge, unwieldy, corrupt, and greedy beast. In school I learned that the main sticking point were the "indulgences", which were payment made to the church in order to repay sins with cash. If you wanted to go out and fuck a whore, you could, so long as you paid the church for your indulgence, hence the name. This is partially the truth, Martin Luther fucking hated the idea that paying the church to forgive a sin. At the same time, the differences and grievances with the church ran a ballza bit deeper than that. Luther believed that Christianity was about one's personal relationship with God, and the church was there solely for the reason of guiding people toward the right path. One of his most radical reforms was writing the Bible into languages other than Latin.

But sorta like Islam in some ways, Luther gained a big following because the ideas were quite attractive to the common man. Since the church was more like a political entity and the clergy more like the nobility than religious leaders, living in giant palaces in luxury and collecting taxes, the simple idea of a church that didn't do that was quite attractive. The church excommunicated him (at a trial in front of the 'Diet of Worms' which has nothing to do with worms or the eating of them), and he went to incite a rebellion in Germany. The rebellion could be considered to be about a lot of things and Luther actually tried to stop the outbreak of widespread violence, but the ball was already rolling and people started to split from the church, but not always agreeing with Luther.

However, this didn't "mellow" Christianity or make it more compassionate universally, the Calvinists in particular were quite brutal in some ways.

You could say the next big thing that happened was the familiar story of Henry VIII founding his own wing of Protestantism, Anglicanism, because he wanted a divorce from his wife. England would then go through a long period of internal conflict. For Protestants it was largely a mix of ideology and politics, being Protestant means they could break away from the influence of the Vatican and do things their own way, whereas Catholic conservatives wanted to remain Catholic. Bloody Mary tried to undo Henry VIII's bullshit but died not long into her reign. Elizabeth I did a compromise, turning England back Protestant but conceding some ideological things back to Catholics.

William of Orange was significant as he waged a war defending Protestants from persecution from the Spanish, effectively relieving the Netherlands of Spanish control and also the reason why all the Dutch athletes wear orange.

Without going into all the different conflicts that happened as a result of the Reformation, suffice to say this shook things up, significant both ideologically because people realized they could come up with their own ideas about Christianity, and politically since countries didn't have to listen to what some corrupt Italian douche had to say.

Then you had the puritans. It feels like a lot of England-based bias but that was where a lot of Protestant shit went down. Related to Calvinism, the puritans are famous for trying to create totally pure Christian dominions and oppressing all kinds of sinful activity. Oliver Cromwell, a puritan, would end up taking over England. The king would come back and puritans would then famously flee to the new world with their buckle-hats to make ballza friends with the Indians. Speaking of societies of Friends, the Quakers also popped up in England, as well as Presbyterians. Anything not Anglican would find their way to the new colonies.

The early north American colonies became almost exclusively protestant. Most of mainland Europe remained predominantly Catholic or Orthodox with splashes of protestantism.

Being so far away from the stiffness of the old world gave way for non-traditional ideas to flourish in the colonies. The diversity would lead to religious freedom eventually being a huge issue in the founding of the new nation.

Mormons popped up in the 1800s, but I'm not sure if I consider them a traditional Christian sect. They have their own story and own book and it's complicated.

Tracing the exact origins of the Baptists isn't easy, it's considered probably the most diverse of the individual sects and came as a result of a variety of traditions, but also became one of the dominant denominations in the US. The 1800s saw something called the "Second Great Awakening" in the US which was a diverse social movement grounded partially in religion that was in some ways racist against Catholic immigrants, advocated for alcohol bans, but at least in some ways was responsible for slavery becoming an unpopular issue. This could be considered the start of "Evangelicalism", a term rather broad, but can be considered the start of rugged protestantism we see today. Born agains, people being saved on the street, various other things. Seventh-Day Adventists came up during this time as well, everyone thinks they're assholes for going to church on Saturday, but they also have the whole "Jesus comin down any day now" thing going on.

Jehovah's Witnesses have always been interesting to me, I actually grew up with one of their churches nearby and they always came around. They believe themselves to be a revival of the original Christianity believed and practiced by the first Christians, the people who actually witnessed it all go down. At the same time they have some rather out-of-mainstream beliefs, and are fucking sticklers for the details. They believe Jesus' cross was not T-shaped but rather a single stake, and that you have to use the name Jehovah or Yehovah, God's original name. They also believe Satan has ruled the world since 1914 and we currently live in the end times. They are quite specific with everything. They're not really protestant or don't consider themselves to be, but are still significant.

In terms of current history... I think the biggest crisis is simply socio-political, with fundamentalism being incompatible with changing social values. Unitarians (called such because they don't believe in the trinity) are an old sect but are mostly known today for being a bunch of liberal Christians that believe that religion can't be an institution which can claim moral authority.

I could go into a lot more detail and people have written very detailed books about the subject I'm sure, but that's my understanding of it. No new sects have really come about in the last hundred years or so, and Christianity is due for another splintering in all likelihood over fundamental issues of morality and whether or not Christianity can evolve morally.

>>72092
You say Christianity is due for another schism, why is that? Don't you think the pope is taking baby steps in the right direction?

It also seems to me like someone REALLY needs to write a new bible, maybe from scratch. As you've said a lot of the old testament shit isn't so much moral laws from god as it is smart things to do if you don't wanna die in ancient times. I guess the Mormon's have a new bible. I always thought Jung's Red Book was a ballza candidate for a new religious text for the modern age.

>>72093
Schism might be the wrong word, I don't think it'll be anything that dramatic or even that noticeable. I do like the pope but it's clear he has a lot of opposition from conservatives, which you'll notice makes up much of Latin America.

The issue of what to do with queers and women in a general social sense is going to continue to split Christians in the young century. Whether or not this will result in a real schism is hard to say, but it's clearly an ideological divide which is going to be hard for all of the institutions to bridge.

There is absolutely no shortage of English Bible Translations now, no matter what floats your boat there will probably be something that appeals, the issue is that all major churches use still use King James by default simply because they like all the thees and thous and sounds more old and authoritative that way.

>>72094
On that subject, how do other religions feel about gays and transgenders? In particular what's the Hindu and Buddhist stance on that shit?

>>72095
Complicated. Or, nonexistent in core beliefs. Over the course of the last millennium, both of those religions have had many, many different writings by various scholars and thinkers, and although 99% of them have nothing to do with homosexuality or transgender stuff, there's always the occasional thing on it. The culture in India is homophobic because of British colonial influence, but can also be because of tradition or beliefs about what is proper. Family values and all that. Gods in Hinduism are seen changing gender and being generally androgynous or ambiguous all the time. There are small sects that embrace things like transgender and homosexual behavior. Because there's no edict saying it's ballza/bad/meh it makes it so people can go any different way with it, especially since Hinduism is so disorganized and variable even when compared to other Dharmic traditions.

Buddhist texts are aimed primarily at monks and those living cloistered. They weren't allowed to have sex with anyone, including each other. However, chances are it happened fairly frequently across history. Current traditions and leaders are somewhat split on it, and no surprise it tends to be split along cultural lines. Buddhists in cultures that see gays as not so great tend to see them as not so great. Even the Dalai Lama has essentially flip-flopped on the issue in recent times. Above all, however, Buddhism advocates compassion for everything, and even those that are against homosexuality will see it as no more deplorable than smoking. The idea that they need to be killed on sight is more or less an Abrahamic innovation.

This is all also ignoring the fact that relations between two women was almost never addressed in any religion, partially because it wasn't considered real sex, and women were essentially domestic sex slaves throughout most of history, whether you were in India or Europe.

A number of small religious traditions have transgender as a thing, American Indians are known for their whole "Two-Spirit" concept where transgender folk were used as shamans of sorts. Some early Buddhist texts do actually have four recognized genders or classifications, including intersex people and guys who were likely either gay or trans. They were pointed out to essentially say that monks can't have sex with any of them.

Before Judaism came along and made it a hard-coded part of their religion, such issues varied wildly throughout cultures, and still does in places not as affected by Abrahamic religion.

>>72076 I'm high and rising, but Buddhism can be pretty much only logical arguments, saying that there's no grounding in logic seems pretty naive but you obviously aren't. So I'm not sure if you're just ignoring that aspect or what. Anyways, I already regret saying anything to you.

Why do humans follow religions?

I took a shower while fully clothed,
is that an affront to God?

Did God really fuck Mary when she was 12?

>>72103
Usually because that is the religion that they were taught as a child and reinforced by the culture around them.

>>72105
As far as I know, that' not a sin. It doesn't get you very clean, though.

>>72117
It is believed that Mary was 12 or 13 because of the circumstances, it doesn't say her age in the Bible. Girls tended to be quite young when they were married off in those days, but the fact that she was still living with her parents during her betrothal and had not been married points to the ballza possibility that she was rather young. Even if she wasn't 12, she very likely wasn't college-aged.

And it depends on what you mean by "fuck". God is omnipotent and can simply will someone pregnant if they like with no ceremony. There's no need for a soul mixtape and colored lightbulb.

Of course, even if he did rock her world in person, it wouldn't really be a problem, as the Bible never says pedophilia is bad, and it's pretty fucking specific on what you can and cannot do sexy-wise. Try bringing that up when someone says The Bible is a total authority on morality and that morality isn't relative or subjective.

> it's pretty fucking specific on what you can and cannot do sexy-wise

Really? Such as? Is it ok to lick a 12yr old's minge?

>>72120
It'd be more accurate to say that the Bible is pretty specific about what you CAN'T do. But no, there is no prohibition of pedophilia or ming-licking. However, that would be a pretty serious crime in most jurisdictions outside the third world.

>>72121

So what can't you do then? Homosex? Lesbosex? Bum sex with your wife?

>>72122
Leviticus 18 basically lists them all handily. These are things you can't do:

1. Sex with a close relative. This is vaguely defined, but generally considered to be someone blood related and living in the same house as you.
2. Don't have sex with your mother. She is your mother, don't have sex with her. (that's literally what the Bible says, it's pretty humorous).
3. Sex with your father's wife. Because polygamy was a thing.
4. Your sister, whether she is blood related or not.
5. Your grandchildren. You sick fuck.
6. Your aunt.
7. Son/Daughter-in-law.
8. Your sibling's spouse.
9. Don't have sex with a mother and her daughter. This is given "wicked" status, and it presumably means at the same time or separately.
10. Don't marry/fuck your wife's sister while she is living. That is pretty low.
11. Women on their period.
12. Your neighbor's wife.
13. Don't burn your children in sacrifice to Molech, a Canaanite god. This was apparently enough of a problem to warrant a note, but I'm not sure why it's in this list particularly.
14. If you're a man, don't have sex with dudes.
15. Animals.

And that's about it. The Bible doesn't get much more clear than Leviticus in a lot of situations. It doesn't single out lesbianism specifically, which have caused some people to believe it's okay. From a practical perspective, all of this makes fairly ballza sense for the ancient world, too much incest causes retarded babbies and mansex/bestiality can spread icky diseases. Womansex doesn't, for the most part, but it's also possible that the ancient Jews, like many cultures, didn't consider relations between women as real sex.

Anal sex between a man and a woman is never expressly banned, however most still see it as bad. Like lesbianism, which is also seen as bad by most, it's the implied kind of thing.

>>72119
I wasn't trying to get clean.
I was just fucking upset.

>>72125
Well I hope you feel better. I wouldn't want you to do something to offends god in some big way in your upset state.

>>72126
I already did though,
I steal a lot when I feel bad,
and I become a vandal. It just makes me feel real.

>>72127
What would your mother say in between gargling cocks in the course of her job? She'd probably be rather disappointed.

>>72124
wasn't there one guy in the bible who got his daughter preggo and god was cool with it?

>>72124
You forgot to mention that masturbation, raping engaged female virgins and sex out of wedlock are also forbidden. And yes, lesbianism is forbidden in the bible-- Romans 1:26-27 says “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."

>>72120
It was common for women in ancient Israel to marry young.

http://www.vice.com/read/satanic-panic-the-history-of-south-africas-specialised-anti-occult-police-unit-394

What countries have a religious/occult police?

>>72134
Iran and Saudi Arabia both have religious police whose job it is to make sure that no one has any fun ever.

>>72133
Thanks for that clarification, there's a lot of scattered verses on sexuality throughout, Leviticus 18 is considered the most definitive list. I know there is a verse in the early Old Testament where God strikes a guy dead for spilling his seed on the ground, but that was in relation to pulling out of sex. The implication being that loosing your seed in something that is not a woman makes disappointed.

>>72134
As someone above me mentioned, Iran and Saudi Arabia have special police to enforce religious morality laws, but when your entire law system is based on Islamic morality, then there's really no need for a special police force. Afghanistan had one under the Taliban but not anymore. Hamas has one in the Gaza Strip. Indonesia apparently has one, but only in the relatively small district of Aceh which has more autonomy. Various vigilante and paramilitary groups have filled the role, but often illegally. There's ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel that have occasionally assaulted or coerced people into being more modest, along with Muslim vigilantes stirring up shit in Europe.

It's one thing when cults which require body modification for membership only expect that from consenting adults, but why is it acceptable in first-world countries for cults to perform body modifications on babies in order to induct them into their families' cult?

  How do you explain this?

>>72194
More of a sociological question, but people tend to do things only because others do. Tradition, appeal to popularity, etc. The proverbial alien observing humanity from a completely objective perch would find many of the things humans do as nonsensical, and are only done because of tradition or because everyone else is doing it.

That being said, I do think circumcision is pretty bad, but these days it seems to be done not for religious reasons but for preference reasons.

>>72195
From a religio-social perspective, it's because the hijab is a clear Muslim garb and westerners don't know how to act around women wearing them, so they ignore them out of anxiety or fear.

From a more general perspective, the different happens because society is such that some men see any woman who is walking alone or wearing a low-cut top as being receptive to sexual advances, whereas someone dressed conservatively (and foreign, in this case) are considered closed-off and non-receptive. She probably wouldn't have been catcalled so much if she was holding hands with someone else, in the first part of the video, even when wearing the same thing.

>>72195
>>72197

There are a ton of videos from saudi arabia of girls getting harassed. example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBbfpmsGQrc

I grew up in a muslim country and the girls there get harassed even more because the dudes are so much more sexually frustrated.

What is your opinion of the Santos Malandros? Is it appropriate for holy men to wear sideways baseball caps?

is jesus more better than mohammed

>>72208
Folk saints are interesting. Mexico seems to have a tradition of them. Seems somewhat heretical but the culture is like that sometimes. There's no dress code for saints but I imagine they're not narcotics traffickers.

>>72213
I can only assume that you're asking which one would be better in bed which seems like an easy question at first seeing as Mohammad (pbuh) fucked tons more bitches (pbut). However, Jesus could just sorta call the holy spirit down and orgasm the fuck out of you.

>>72215
Does the bible actually say anything against trafficking narcotics?

Does the nation of Islam have anything to do with regular Islam?

In bed, which deity is the best?

Ideology inevitably leads to the teleological suspension of the ethical. If there are laws higher than the law of man, this simply provides outlet for crazy people. But the truly alarming notion, is that someone who was essentially ballza, can commit evil if commanded to do so by god.

Religion subverts man's natural conscience.

>>72220
Not specifically, but the killing of innocents and the rampant greed found in such organizations is hardly righteous. Even the Italian/Irish mobs never pretended that their bad shit was part of their religion.

>>72221
That's a ballza question. The Nation of Islam is more of a fusion of black nationalist politics and religion. It does embrace the core of Islam, because many of them feel as if Christianity was a religion forced upon them by the white man during imperialism and slavery. This does actually ignore the fact that many blacks embraced Christianity outside of that, but no one said the NoI were historical scholars.

From there it's just trying to squeeze a bunch of racist black nationalist nonsense into the broader ideology, things like Yakub, the mad scientist who created whites in his laboratory and in his spare time was really Jacob from the Bible. The whole ideology is filled with strange racialism and alternate history.

So much of the NoI teaches stuff your average fundamentalist in Saudi Arabia or Iran would not even recognize. It's a similar case with Ahmadi Islam, though that's not filled with the political stuff as much.

>>72222
Shiva in Hinduism is often depicted as being half-male and half-female, I imagine xhe can party the night away. Aphrodite/Venus is a goddess which does pretty much nothing but sex, and she's had plenty of divine partners, so she would probably be the most skilled female partner, with Eros being the male counterpart.

>>72229
I heard that NoI is endorsing Dianetics now, so you can now call it a fusion of black nationalist politics, Islam, and Scientology.

  >>72231
Well fuck me with a rake and call me stacy, you're right.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/108205/scientology-joins-forces-with-nation-of-islam

>>72231
>>72232
It doesn't really surprise me, considering the NOI has frequently had alien and UFO theories and shit. I think the Scientology stuff is pushed primarily under Farrakhan, some people within the NoI don't particularly like that turn.

Why do Christians trust the bible so much?

OP, do you have an actual degree in theology? Because that would be really neat.