For years, I have considered skepticism to be part of my worldview regarding everything. However, for about the past two years, I have developed serious doubts specifically about Abrahamic religions. Today I had some free time and happened to find the opportunity for an informal student discussion session with a cleric. Our discussion started from a verse in Surah Yunus (about the drowning of Pharaoh) and eventually reached the point where his final position was that, fundamentally, we cannot understand god's actions.
The defeat was clear. The cleric claimed to be well-prepared, yet in the end he resorted to the same card that anyone uses when they hit an intellectual dead end. At that moment, I reached a near certainty. Immediately after the session, I spoke with chatgpt, grok, and gemini and laid out my mental scenario and arguments. All three initially responded with very strong and challenging arguments (similar to the standard clerical responses). Using their own replies, I raised new questions, and eventually I managed to force all of them into admitting contradictions and effectively checkmate them (although grok was more stubborn).
In the end, this is something that can be used for a complete rejection of Abrahamic religions, what one might call an "Abrahamic checkmate". That said, I personally believe that religions function as an external moral framework for society, because history has shown that atheism, if not worse, certainly does not lead to better moral or civilizational outcomes. Since I fundamentally cannot refute deism, atheism is not acceptable to me at all, but the Abrahamic god certainly is.
Furthermore, at present, society cannot realistically be expected to abandon Abrahamic religions and turn into unstructured atheism, because it simply does not yet have the capacity for that. However, I believe the discussion should be conducted seriously and fundamentally, without childish insults or relying on claims that lie outside the internal concepts of Abrahamic religions themselves.
First, let's clear something up:
This is NOT an argument against god existing.
This is an argument against specific historical and moral claims made by Abrahamic religions.
Deism survives.
The Abrahamic model does not.
What Abrahamic religions actually claim;
They don't just say 'god exists'.
They claim that:
God actively intervenes in human history,
God sends prophets to guide people,
God gives laws and moral commands,
God judges humans based on the guidance they received,
God is perfectly just
Once you claim direct intervention + moral judgment, logic applies.
1-Unequal revelation = unequal justice
One group (the israelites):
Hundreds of prophets,
Repeated miracles,
Detailed divine laws,
Constant divine correction,
And more... .
Other civilizations:
Mayans: long-term human sacrifice.
Aztecs: industrial-scale ritual killing.
Norse: blood rituals, slavery.
Many Africans, east Asians, native Americans(reds): no comparable prophetic tradition.
So the obvious question:
Why does one small ethnic group receive non-stop divine attention,
while entire continents are basically left alone?
If judgment is universal, guidance must be universally fair, not ethnically concentrated.
2-"Every nation had a prophet" doesn't solve it.
This is the standard response, but it fails quickly.
If every nation truly received:
Real prophets,
Clear moral reform,
Repeated warnings.
Then history should show:
Abolition of extreme practices (like child sacrifice),
Moral revolutions comparable to the Israelite tradition.
But we don't see that.
Either:
The prophets were ineffective,
The message was weak,
Divine intervention was minimal.
All three options contradict divine justice.
3-The Mayan problem
The Mayans practiced human sacrifice (including children) for centuries.
Compare this with israel:
Worship a golden calf >>> immediate divine reaction
Minor deviation >>> prophet sent
Prophet rejected >>> another prophet sent
Why endless correction for one group, but silence for another?
If free will explains silence, why wasn't free will respected equally everywhere?
4-Collective punishment breaks moral logic.
Consider Noah's flood (Genesis 6–9):
Children died,
Infants died,
People without moral agency died.
There are only three defenses:
Defense 1: "They deserved it"
Infants cannot deserve punishment. End of the discussion.
Defense 2: "They would have sinned later"
That's determinism, no free will.
This is the same logic criticized in the story of Khidr (al-Khidr / possibly unidentified. often compared to Elijah or an angelic figure, but with no clear old Testament equivalent) killing the child (quran).
Defense 3: "They were compensated in the afterlife"
Then earthly justice is meaningless.
5-Timing destroys justice.
Thought experiment:
If the flood happened 20 years earlier,
most "corrupt people" would have been infants.
Same contradiction.
Justice that changes based on timing is arbitrary, not divine.
6-"God knows best" is a logic shutdown, not an answer.
Once you say:
"God's wisdom is beyond human logic and morality."
Then:
The Trinity becomes immune,
Human sacrifice becomes immune,
Pagan religions become immune,
Every belief system can say:
"You just don't understand god's wisdom."
At that point, rational religion collapses.
This refutes the Abrahamic model, not god.
A distant creator? Possible.
A deistic god? Possible.
But:
A god who micromanages history,
Selects ethnic favorites,
Gives wildly unequal guidance,
Judges everyone equally anyway,
That model fails logically.
Final conclusion
You can believe in God.
You can believe religion stabilizes society.
But the Abrahamic claim of historical divine justice collapses under scrutiny.
/ub/ - Überhengst
Becoming better
24 replies | 11 files | 8 UUIDs | Page 2
1766244634.mov (15.9 MB, Resolution:640x352 Length:00:00:37, 4_5767273503724148992.mov) [play once] [loop]
Didn't read a single word but the abrahamic prophecy won
>>8991
If you can't handle it, there's no need to post in /ub/. Not everyone is expected to be that smart.
If you can't handle it, there's no need to post in /ub/. Not everyone is expected to be that smart.
>>8990
>his final position was that, fundamentally, we cannot understand god's actions.
This is not unique to "Abrahamic" religions. Clerics in literally all religions do this.
>I spoke with chatgpt, grok, and gemini and laid out my mental scenario and arguments. All three initially responded with very strong and challenging arguments (similar to the standard clerical responses). Using their own replies, I raised new questions, and eventually I managed to force all of them into admitting contradictions and effectively checkmate them (although grok was more stubborn).
Nigger, you spoke with a sycophantic algorithm that just scrapes the top page of reddit to spit out words designed to make you feel better about your preexisting notions so that it can maximize positive feedback. Do not waste our time pretending you had some kind of spiritual breakthrough talking to a chatbot.
>effectively checkmate them
Do you not know how chatbots work? They will agree to literally anything if you pressure them to. They are yes-men without beliefs or convictions who's only purpose is to please you.
>In the end, this is something that can be used for a complete rejection of Abrahamic religions, what one might call an "Abrahamic checkmate".
What is it about "Abrahamic" religions in particular? You should have opened with that.
>the Abrahamic god
There is no "Abrahamic God" as you describe. Christians, Muslims and Jews have completely different concepts of God based on separate mythological origins, and the separate fundamental nature's of God inform their sense of morality in completely different ways.
See https://mlpol.net/mlpol/398172#398881 for details.
>Furthermore, at present, society cannot realistically be expected to abandon Abrahamic religions and turn into unstructured atheism, because it simply does not yet have the capacity for that.
So what is your alternative? Reviving dead pagan religions? Disorganized spiritual esoterica with no moral system?
.
And you still haven't mentioned how this "checkmate" applies to "Abrahamic" religions as opposed to any other religions.
>Deism survives.
>The Abrahamic model does not.
Deism and "Abrahamic models" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, deism is rather common among Christians.
>What Abrahamic religions actually claim;
>They don't just say 'god exists'.
>They claim that:
>God actively intervenes in human history,
>God sends prophets to guide people,
>God gives laws and moral commands,
>God judges humans based on the guidance they received,
ALL RELIGIONS claim this. These concepts are not exclusive to "Abrahamic" religions at all.
>Other civilizations:
>Mayans: long-term human sacrifice.
>Aztecs: industrial-scale ritual killing.
>Norse: blood rituals, slavery.
What an ignorant, surface-level oversimplification of pagan religions. All those religions had divine laws, moral systems, prophets, and myths of divine intervention.
>Many Africans, east Asians, native Americans(reds): no comparable prophetic tradition.
Neolin? Tenskwatawa? Handsome Lake? White Buffalo Calf Woman? Deganawida? Those are just the first few Native American prophet names that appear in a search engine, and there are hundreds more.
Asian has Buddha, who is basically a prophet, COUNTLESS Hindu Prophets, the Jain Saints, legendary Rapist shamans, and the even the spiritual leaders who would later go on to form the Shinto theocratic dynasty.
Africans had Babalawos and the Orisha.
Maybe research pagan history for even 15 minutes, instead of talking to chatbots.
>Why does one small ethnic group receive non-stop divine attention
One of the MAIN POINTS of Christianity was telling Jews that they were not inherently special and that all humans have the same care from God. Daring to suggest it made Jews so livid that they had him crucified. Islam says the same.
Only Jews believe that their ethnicity is special, because they are an ethnic religion (as well as being greedy, self-centered narcissists). That's really just how ethnic religions work. Hindus say similar things, as do various Native Americans.
>If judgment is universal, guidance must be universally fair, not ethnically concentrated.
That's what Jesus said.
The thing you are taking about us exclusive to Judaism, not Christianity or Islam. It's a Jewish thing, not an "Abrahamic" thing.
>Either:
>The prophets were ineffective,
>The message was weak,
>Divine intervention was minimal.
This dilemma can be applied to most religions on earth, not just "Abrahamic" ones.
>3-The Mayan problem
Well, According to Mormons, who are technically "Abrahamic" there were prophets all over the world, especially in the Americas, but the demon-worshipping Native Americans just murdered all of the Christians. That's just an example of how not every interpretation of the vast net of "Abrahamic" religions do not fit into your narrow worldview.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Again, again, and again, none of this is "Abrahamic". Literally every argument here could be applied to Zoroastrianism if you wanted, or any religion for that matter.
>his final position was that, fundamentally, we cannot understand god's actions.
This is not unique to "Abrahamic" religions. Clerics in literally all religions do this.
>I spoke with chatgpt, grok, and gemini and laid out my mental scenario and arguments. All three initially responded with very strong and challenging arguments (similar to the standard clerical responses). Using their own replies, I raised new questions, and eventually I managed to force all of them into admitting contradictions and effectively checkmate them (although grok was more stubborn).
Nigger, you spoke with a sycophantic algorithm that just scrapes the top page of reddit to spit out words designed to make you feel better about your preexisting notions so that it can maximize positive feedback. Do not waste our time pretending you had some kind of spiritual breakthrough talking to a chatbot.
>effectively checkmate them
Do you not know how chatbots work? They will agree to literally anything if you pressure them to. They are yes-men without beliefs or convictions who's only purpose is to please you.
>In the end, this is something that can be used for a complete rejection of Abrahamic religions, what one might call an "Abrahamic checkmate".
What is it about "Abrahamic" religions in particular? You should have opened with that.
>the Abrahamic god
There is no "Abrahamic God" as you describe. Christians, Muslims and Jews have completely different concepts of God based on separate mythological origins, and the separate fundamental nature's of God inform their sense of morality in completely different ways.
See https://mlpol.net/mlpol/398172#398881 for details.
>Furthermore, at present, society cannot realistically be expected to abandon Abrahamic religions and turn into unstructured atheism, because it simply does not yet have the capacity for that.
So what is your alternative? Reviving dead pagan religions? Disorganized spiritual esoterica with no moral system?
.
And you still haven't mentioned how this "checkmate" applies to "Abrahamic" religions as opposed to any other religions.
>Deism survives.
>The Abrahamic model does not.
Deism and "Abrahamic models" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, deism is rather common among Christians.
>What Abrahamic religions actually claim;
>They don't just say 'god exists'.
>They claim that:
>God actively intervenes in human history,
>God sends prophets to guide people,
>God gives laws and moral commands,
>God judges humans based on the guidance they received,
ALL RELIGIONS claim this. These concepts are not exclusive to "Abrahamic" religions at all.
>Other civilizations:
>Mayans: long-term human sacrifice.
>Aztecs: industrial-scale ritual killing.
>Norse: blood rituals, slavery.
What an ignorant, surface-level oversimplification of pagan religions. All those religions had divine laws, moral systems, prophets, and myths of divine intervention.
>Many Africans, east Asians, native Americans(reds): no comparable prophetic tradition.
Neolin? Tenskwatawa? Handsome Lake? White Buffalo Calf Woman? Deganawida? Those are just the first few Native American prophet names that appear in a search engine, and there are hundreds more.
Asian has Buddha, who is basically a prophet, COUNTLESS Hindu Prophets, the Jain Saints, legendary Rapist shamans, and the even the spiritual leaders who would later go on to form the Shinto theocratic dynasty.
Africans had Babalawos and the Orisha.
Maybe research pagan history for even 15 minutes, instead of talking to chatbots.
>Why does one small ethnic group receive non-stop divine attention
One of the MAIN POINTS of Christianity was telling Jews that they were not inherently special and that all humans have the same care from God. Daring to suggest it made Jews so livid that they had him crucified. Islam says the same.
Only Jews believe that their ethnicity is special, because they are an ethnic religion (as well as being greedy, self-centered narcissists). That's really just how ethnic religions work. Hindus say similar things, as do various Native Americans.
>If judgment is universal, guidance must be universally fair, not ethnically concentrated.
That's what Jesus said.
The thing you are taking about us exclusive to Judaism, not Christianity or Islam. It's a Jewish thing, not an "Abrahamic" thing.
>Either:
>The prophets were ineffective,
>The message was weak,
>Divine intervention was minimal.
This dilemma can be applied to most religions on earth, not just "Abrahamic" ones.
>3-The Mayan problem
Well, According to Mormons, who are technically "Abrahamic" there were prophets all over the world, especially in the Americas, but the demon-worshipping Native Americans just murdered all of the Christians. That's just an example of how not every interpretation of the vast net of "Abrahamic" religions do not fit into your narrow worldview.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Again, again, and again, none of this is "Abrahamic". Literally every argument here could be applied to Zoroastrianism if you wanted, or any religion for that matter.
>>8990
are you the iranbro? all of the sudden lost your interest in islam?
or am i mistaking you?
--
anyway
i have a bit of a problem with abrahamic religions.
why yahweh allowed christianity and islam to grow?
why Jesus allowed islam to grow?
why allah if he says Jesus was just a prophet of his, so why the fuck did you allow that for Christians to be mistaken by it?
seems like a fuck up by their parts.
why abrahamic god never had any interest in east asia? why he always sends his messengers in middle east?
why did ahura allowed his religion to die? why did he allow so much suffering upon his own people?, i can ask the same thing about jews as well.
also many times God's wrath seems to only affect the innocent ones or even at the times the victims instead of the people on the power.
and many times God exactly feel like the elder gods from mortal kombat, doing literally nothing to prevent any problems , playing with their balls watching innocents to suffer.
also those religions meant to create unity between humanity, so all of them can be under a single flag, but opposite happened and it created more diversion, AND MILLIONS of WARs through out the history. just added more reasons to fight. i feel like that was the actual plan.
are you the iranbro? all of the sudden lost your interest in islam?
or am i mistaking you?
--
anyway
i have a bit of a problem with abrahamic religions.
why yahweh allowed christianity and islam to grow?
why Jesus allowed islam to grow?
why allah if he says Jesus was just a prophet of his, so why the fuck did you allow that for Christians to be mistaken by it?
seems like a fuck up by their parts.
why abrahamic god never had any interest in east asia? why he always sends his messengers in middle east?
why did ahura allowed his religion to die? why did he allow so much suffering upon his own people?, i can ask the same thing about jews as well.
also many times God's wrath seems to only affect the innocent ones or even at the times the victims instead of the people on the power.
and many times God exactly feel like the elder gods from mortal kombat, doing literally nothing to prevent any problems , playing with their balls watching innocents to suffer.
also those religions meant to create unity between humanity, so all of them can be under a single flag, but opposite happened and it created more diversion, AND MILLIONS of WARs through out the history. just added more reasons to fight. i feel like that was the actual plan.
>>8993
>This is not unique to "Abrahamic" religions. Clerics in literally all religions do this.
No one said this is only about Abrahamic religions. I just meant that any logical discussion about concepts with tricky or ambiguous points eventually leads here. This topic focuses on Abrahamic religions because I know these concepts well, otherwise, yes, you can critique any religion. Also, the most populous religions today that claim to be complete are Abrahamic. You don't really expect me to start criticizing hinduism or paganism here, do you??
>Nigger, you spoke with a sycophantic algorithm that just scrapes the top page of reddit to spit out words designed to make you feel better about your preexisting notions so that it can maximize positive feedback. Do not waste our time pretending you had some kind of spiritual breakthrough talking to a chatbot.
Nigger, did you really think I challenged my years old faith just because of a chat with ai? Damn, I've said I have been in a deep doubt for two years. I had debates like this before, but for various reasons, work came up, time ran out, either I or the other person got tired, and the discussion ended unfinished. Today was the only time the debate literally went all the way without anyone expressing fatigue, and the other person was very assertive. My deep doubt, which had been growing for two years, only reached certainty today. I was just talking to ai so I could separate and organize parts of my thoughts through the discussion. No one's beliefs are going to change after a damn half an hour of chatting!
>Do you not know how chatbots work? They will agree to literally anything if you pressure them to. They are yes-men without beliefs or convictions who's only purpose is to please you.
It's true that they sometimes align with the user to satisfy them, but in discussions that aren't fully refutable or provable, they usually take a neutral or ambiguous stance. The fact that they were ultimately willing to accept it means my point wasn't entirely wrong.
Yes, they definitely try to align with your opinion, but they're not that willing to take a strong stance. You certainly can't discuss jews with ai or try to prove that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is greater than 180.
>What is it about "Abrahamic" religions in particular? You should have opened with that.
All the shared and accepted concepts among the three main religions, judaism, christianity, and islam.
If you pay attention, all my examples, events, and concepts were drawn from what's common between them. Otherwise, if I were to use non-shared concepts, wouldn't it have been easier for me to highlight the injustice of the abrahamic god by focusing on the book of Joshua?
>There is no "Abrahamic God" as you describe. Christians, Muslims and Jews have completely different concepts of God based on separate mythological origins, and the separate fundamental nature's of God inform their sense of morality in completely different ways. See [link] for details.
You yourself shortly after claimed that this is the definition of god in every religion (which, of course, is incorrect), so you essentially agree that this definition should be common among the abrahamic religions.
It doesn't matter if the definition, name, or origin of god differs. All of them agree on the basic idea that Yahweh, the Father, and Allah are the same god who sent the flood to Noah and sent thousands of prophets to the jews. Pineapple or ananas, it makes no difference, the essence and main content are the same. I'm not talking about later distortions, because anyone can easily reject those. I want to draw conclusions from the part that is broad and applies to all, leaving no excuses.
Your link was useful, but it essentially says the same thing I'm saying. The abrahamic religions share the same core roots, but they've been distorted and influenced by different concepts and rituals. That link examined the matter from the perspective of realism and pragmatism, and what it essentially says is that none of them are completely correct or pure, meaning the major claim of each about being complete and pure is invalid. Your link actually supports my point.
>This is not unique to "Abrahamic" religions. Clerics in literally all religions do this.
No one said this is only about Abrahamic religions. I just meant that any logical discussion about concepts with tricky or ambiguous points eventually leads here. This topic focuses on Abrahamic religions because I know these concepts well, otherwise, yes, you can critique any religion. Also, the most populous religions today that claim to be complete are Abrahamic. You don't really expect me to start criticizing hinduism or paganism here, do you??
>Nigger, you spoke with a sycophantic algorithm that just scrapes the top page of reddit to spit out words designed to make you feel better about your preexisting notions so that it can maximize positive feedback. Do not waste our time pretending you had some kind of spiritual breakthrough talking to a chatbot.
Nigger, did you really think I challenged my years old faith just because of a chat with ai? Damn, I've said I have been in a deep doubt for two years. I had debates like this before, but for various reasons, work came up, time ran out, either I or the other person got tired, and the discussion ended unfinished. Today was the only time the debate literally went all the way without anyone expressing fatigue, and the other person was very assertive. My deep doubt, which had been growing for two years, only reached certainty today. I was just talking to ai so I could separate and organize parts of my thoughts through the discussion. No one's beliefs are going to change after a damn half an hour of chatting!
>Do you not know how chatbots work? They will agree to literally anything if you pressure them to. They are yes-men without beliefs or convictions who's only purpose is to please you.
It's true that they sometimes align with the user to satisfy them, but in discussions that aren't fully refutable or provable, they usually take a neutral or ambiguous stance. The fact that they were ultimately willing to accept it means my point wasn't entirely wrong.
Yes, they definitely try to align with your opinion, but they're not that willing to take a strong stance. You certainly can't discuss jews with ai or try to prove that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is greater than 180.
>What is it about "Abrahamic" religions in particular? You should have opened with that.
All the shared and accepted concepts among the three main religions, judaism, christianity, and islam.
If you pay attention, all my examples, events, and concepts were drawn from what's common between them. Otherwise, if I were to use non-shared concepts, wouldn't it have been easier for me to highlight the injustice of the abrahamic god by focusing on the book of Joshua?
>There is no "Abrahamic God" as you describe. Christians, Muslims and Jews have completely different concepts of God based on separate mythological origins, and the separate fundamental nature's of God inform their sense of morality in completely different ways. See [link] for details.
You yourself shortly after claimed that this is the definition of god in every religion (which, of course, is incorrect), so you essentially agree that this definition should be common among the abrahamic religions.
It doesn't matter if the definition, name, or origin of god differs. All of them agree on the basic idea that Yahweh, the Father, and Allah are the same god who sent the flood to Noah and sent thousands of prophets to the jews. Pineapple or ananas, it makes no difference, the essence and main content are the same. I'm not talking about later distortions, because anyone can easily reject those. I want to draw conclusions from the part that is broad and applies to all, leaving no excuses.
Your link was useful, but it essentially says the same thing I'm saying. The abrahamic religions share the same core roots, but they've been distorted and influenced by different concepts and rituals. That link examined the matter from the perspective of realism and pragmatism, and what it essentially says is that none of them are completely correct or pure, meaning the major claim of each about being complete and pure is invalid. Your link actually supports my point.
>>8993
>So what is your alternative? Reviving dead pagan religions? Disorganized spiritual esoterica with no moral system?
As I said in the topic, I'm opposed to atheism, because it offers certainty about the non-existence of god, while in reality we absolutely cannot rule god out. So atheism is basically an impulsive and illogical stance. The bigger issue is society's capacity. Right now, society simply doesn't have the capacity to free itself from the ready-made frameworks of religion. At the moment, religion functions like an external skeleton that protects ethical boundaries to some extent. Removing this external skeleton without strengthening the internal structure will lead to social decay.
Currently, moral concepts and standards are largely defined by earlier religions. However, society's confrontation with new moral concepts and ethical challenges shows that, in the end, it is society itself that creates morality, just as it creates religion. But this is a long term process and requires a society with a rich ethical foundation, something we haven't reached yet. Right now, society relies on ready-made formulas and pre-chewed answers, it needs to reach a point where it can discover, rebuild, or even invent these things itself. That can't be achieved through sudden force or pressure. It may take years for logical criticism of religions to enter public discourse as legitimate religious debate, so that religions' capacity for criticism becomes clear and more people find the courage to critique them.
At present, the Abrahamic religions are ones that people still noticeably hesitate to critique in a logical and comprehensive way. I'm not talking about internal critiques (like christians vs muslims, christians vs jews, or even shiites attacking sunnis). Those are either insulting or never expose the fundamental falsehoods at the root. Pure insults and accusations don't produce rational critique either. I've seen very few people who genuinely target all Abrahamic religions in a deep, comprehensive, and general way using logic.
I will never call myself an apostate, because islam itself asked me to think. So I will keep thinking, and I will keep criticizing and debating clerics until either I realize my own mistakes, or others come to understand the fundamental problems of Abrahamic religions. Also, I personally lean toward a kind of post-humanism, but I believe the first step for humans to truly understand themselves is to critique and reject religions that give them false pride, and to become skeptical agnostics first.
>And you still haven't mentioned how this "checkmate" applies to "Abrahamic" religions as opposed to any other religions.
This is essentially a checkmate against the Abrahamic religions, because in the end, in all Abrahamic religions, when a discussion is pursued by both sides without resorting to sophistry or insults, it ultimately reaches the same point: "God is righteous beyond human logic."
At that point, you can neutralize this special plea by reminding them that other religions justify themselves in exactly the same way. You can tell them that if, in the end, every religion considers its own presuppositions to be true and shields itself by declaring its god righteous, then the very concept of rational and genuine faith disappears and is replaced by ignorant, presuppositional faith, which is precisely the opposite of what Abrahamic religions claim to promote. In other words, it becomes a contradiction.
Essentially, by applying sustained pressure and repeated checks, you push the person to a point where the only escape left is the phrase "God's righteousness". But you are already prepared for that move, and you use it to place them in a contradictory position. As a result, the person has no choice but to concede under pressure and accept that, fundamentally, they cannot logically or faith-wise distinguish themselves from, say, a viking who believes in Valhalla. Checkmate! (Of course, this can also be applied to other religions, but here we are specifically talking about the Abrahamic religions.)
>Deism and "Abrahamic models" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, deism is rather common among Christians.
Deism existed thousands of years before even judaism came into being. This is not my claim, it is the claim of the Abrahamic religions themselves, since, according to them, didn't a form of deism exist from the time of Adam? Therefore, this has nothing to do specifically with christianity. It was a general concept that, throughout history, took shape in certain societies (including Iran).
>ALL RELIGIONS claim this. These concepts are not exclusive to "Abrahamic" religions at all.
This is incorrect. Most east Asian religions (Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, and more like them...) were primarily ethical concepts and practices rather than religions centered on a god, divine concepts, and clearly defined prophets.
European pagan religions generally portrayed guidance as coming from beings far beyond human power but possessing human-like moral traits, beings that humans relied on out of fear or a desire for power.
Indigenous religions of the Americas and Africa were mostly oral, tribe-based ethical traditions, lacking a clear structure or well-defined concepts, instead, they were largely relative and non-systematic.
>So what is your alternative? Reviving dead pagan religions? Disorganized spiritual esoterica with no moral system?
As I said in the topic, I'm opposed to atheism, because it offers certainty about the non-existence of god, while in reality we absolutely cannot rule god out. So atheism is basically an impulsive and illogical stance. The bigger issue is society's capacity. Right now, society simply doesn't have the capacity to free itself from the ready-made frameworks of religion. At the moment, religion functions like an external skeleton that protects ethical boundaries to some extent. Removing this external skeleton without strengthening the internal structure will lead to social decay.
Currently, moral concepts and standards are largely defined by earlier religions. However, society's confrontation with new moral concepts and ethical challenges shows that, in the end, it is society itself that creates morality, just as it creates religion. But this is a long term process and requires a society with a rich ethical foundation, something we haven't reached yet. Right now, society relies on ready-made formulas and pre-chewed answers, it needs to reach a point where it can discover, rebuild, or even invent these things itself. That can't be achieved through sudden force or pressure. It may take years for logical criticism of religions to enter public discourse as legitimate religious debate, so that religions' capacity for criticism becomes clear and more people find the courage to critique them.
At present, the Abrahamic religions are ones that people still noticeably hesitate to critique in a logical and comprehensive way. I'm not talking about internal critiques (like christians vs muslims, christians vs jews, or even shiites attacking sunnis). Those are either insulting or never expose the fundamental falsehoods at the root. Pure insults and accusations don't produce rational critique either. I've seen very few people who genuinely target all Abrahamic religions in a deep, comprehensive, and general way using logic.
I will never call myself an apostate, because islam itself asked me to think. So I will keep thinking, and I will keep criticizing and debating clerics until either I realize my own mistakes, or others come to understand the fundamental problems of Abrahamic religions. Also, I personally lean toward a kind of post-humanism, but I believe the first step for humans to truly understand themselves is to critique and reject religions that give them false pride, and to become skeptical agnostics first.
>And you still haven't mentioned how this "checkmate" applies to "Abrahamic" religions as opposed to any other religions.
This is essentially a checkmate against the Abrahamic religions, because in the end, in all Abrahamic religions, when a discussion is pursued by both sides without resorting to sophistry or insults, it ultimately reaches the same point: "God is righteous beyond human logic."
At that point, you can neutralize this special plea by reminding them that other religions justify themselves in exactly the same way. You can tell them that if, in the end, every religion considers its own presuppositions to be true and shields itself by declaring its god righteous, then the very concept of rational and genuine faith disappears and is replaced by ignorant, presuppositional faith, which is precisely the opposite of what Abrahamic religions claim to promote. In other words, it becomes a contradiction.
Essentially, by applying sustained pressure and repeated checks, you push the person to a point where the only escape left is the phrase "God's righteousness". But you are already prepared for that move, and you use it to place them in a contradictory position. As a result, the person has no choice but to concede under pressure and accept that, fundamentally, they cannot logically or faith-wise distinguish themselves from, say, a viking who believes in Valhalla. Checkmate! (Of course, this can also be applied to other religions, but here we are specifically talking about the Abrahamic religions.)
>Deism and "Abrahamic models" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, deism is rather common among Christians.
Deism existed thousands of years before even judaism came into being. This is not my claim, it is the claim of the Abrahamic religions themselves, since, according to them, didn't a form of deism exist from the time of Adam? Therefore, this has nothing to do specifically with christianity. It was a general concept that, throughout history, took shape in certain societies (including Iran).
>ALL RELIGIONS claim this. These concepts are not exclusive to "Abrahamic" religions at all.
This is incorrect. Most east Asian religions (Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, and more like them...) were primarily ethical concepts and practices rather than religions centered on a god, divine concepts, and clearly defined prophets.
European pagan religions generally portrayed guidance as coming from beings far beyond human power but possessing human-like moral traits, beings that humans relied on out of fear or a desire for power.
Indigenous religions of the Americas and Africa were mostly oral, tribe-based ethical traditions, lacking a clear structure or well-defined concepts, instead, they were largely relative and non-systematic.
>>8993
>What an ignorant, surface-level oversimplification of pagan religions. All those religions had divine laws, moral systems, prophets, and myths of divine intervention.
This is not an oversimplification, rather, you think it is. Essentially, we do not see a coherent religion there that is connected to Abrahamic concepts, and that does not mean those traditions are 'simple".
A Maya, for example, might find it strange that we have such a "simple" religion that does not even hold sacrificial rituals. I am arguing in relative terms, otherwise, one could say that Hinduism or even ancient Egyptian religion is more "advanced", since they have many diverse gods suited to every taste, whereas Abrahamic religions have a monotonous, preachy god.
You cannot judge my definition from that perspective, because my point is specifically about Abrahamic religions, namely that, fundamentally, there is no sign of a prophet sent by the Abrahamic god in those religions, or, if there was one, there was no continuity of reform as there was among the jews.
From the Abrahamic perspective, is not the tradition of human sacrifice considered a bloody and ignorant practice?
>Neolin? Tenskwatawa? Handsome Lake? White Buffalo Calf Woman? Deganawida? Those are just the first few Native American prophet names that appear in a search engine, and there are hundreds more. Asian has Buddha, who is basically a prophet, COUNTLESS Hindu Prophets, the Jain Saints, legendary Rapist shamans, and the even the spiritual leaders who would later go on to form the Shinto theocratic dynasty. Africans had Babalawos and the Orisha. Maybe research pagan history for even 15 minutes, instead of talking to chatbots.
I haven't dismissed other religions, rather, I'm saying that there's no sign of "Abrahamic-ness" in them, nothing that shows Abrahamic religions were universal. Moreover, most of these traditions were not prophet-centered, instead, certain wise or moral teachers were regarded as giving ethical or social guidance. Even Buddha isn't meant to be a prophet. The Abrahamic religions' attempts to portray them as "distorted prophets" only raise the question: what happened afterward? Why wasn't their tradition preserved or reformed like judaism? In the end, nothing changes.
You are calling the rituals, traditions, and revered figures of other cultures a "religion", whereas the definition of religion for them is very different from the Abrahamic notion of religion.
>One of the MAIN POINTS of Christianity was telling Jews that they were not inherently special and that all humans have the same care from God. Daring to suggest it made Jews so livid that they had him crucified. Islam says the same. Only Jews believe that their ethnicity is special, because they are an ethnic religion (as well as being greedy, self-centered narcissists). That's really just how ethnic religions work. Hindus say similar things, as do various Native Americans.
I'm not concerned with whether christianity claimed to be universal or not. What matters is that Jesus himself was essentially among the jews. Why was there such an excessive focus on them that a new religion had to emerge just to "reform" the jews (the previous religion)?
If they truly are the chosen people, then divine justice is invalid in any case, because a whole new religion appeared merely to straighten them back onto their own path. If they were such a troublesome people, then logically they should have been wiped out entirely, just as god is said to have decided for other peoples.(for example in the big flood)
And if they were not meant to be destroyed, then others should also have received the same level of divine attention. Israel was certainly not the cradle of civilization or morality, yet 99% of the prophets came from that same region.
>That's what Jesus said. The thing you are taking about us exclusive to Judaism, not Christianity or Islam. It's a Jewish thing, not an "Abrahamic" thing.
So you believe that in Iran, China, Africa, northern Europe, America, and so on, there was the same level of divine attention as in israel? I don't think so. At the very least, the fact that you and I can name at least ten prophets, all of whom were jewish, already shows who received divine attention according to the Abrahamic perspective.
>Well, According to Mormons, who are technically "Abrahamic" there were prophets all over the world, especially in the Americas, but the demon-worshipping Native Americans just murdered all of the Christians. That's just an example of how not every interpretation of the vast net of "Abrahamic" religions do not fit into your narrow worldview.
Well, according to some islamic narrations, in a single day, several hundred prophets were killed by a jewish tribe. Someone like George (Jirjis) was killed and resurrected over 70 times in different jigsaw ways, and in the end, god still sent them another prophet. But when a bunch of christians were killed by the Mayans, no one was sent to them afterward. Don't you think this narrative might be more of a religious justification to ease the conscience over the killing of indigenous people?
>Again, again, and again, none of this is "Abrahamic". Literally every argument here could be applied to Zoroastrianism if you wanted, or any religion for that matter.
I believe that since god is incomprehensible, unprovable, and impossible to refute, creating a completely correct religion to understand god is inherently impossible. I haven't endorsed any other religion, I've only critiqued the Abrahamic religions here. You speak as if I don't have the right to reject religion X just because religion Y can also be rejected. I don't care, because I know all religions are open to criticism.
>What an ignorant, surface-level oversimplification of pagan religions. All those religions had divine laws, moral systems, prophets, and myths of divine intervention.
This is not an oversimplification, rather, you think it is. Essentially, we do not see a coherent religion there that is connected to Abrahamic concepts, and that does not mean those traditions are 'simple".
A Maya, for example, might find it strange that we have such a "simple" religion that does not even hold sacrificial rituals. I am arguing in relative terms, otherwise, one could say that Hinduism or even ancient Egyptian religion is more "advanced", since they have many diverse gods suited to every taste, whereas Abrahamic religions have a monotonous, preachy god.
You cannot judge my definition from that perspective, because my point is specifically about Abrahamic religions, namely that, fundamentally, there is no sign of a prophet sent by the Abrahamic god in those religions, or, if there was one, there was no continuity of reform as there was among the jews.
From the Abrahamic perspective, is not the tradition of human sacrifice considered a bloody and ignorant practice?
>Neolin? Tenskwatawa? Handsome Lake? White Buffalo Calf Woman? Deganawida? Those are just the first few Native American prophet names that appear in a search engine, and there are hundreds more. Asian has Buddha, who is basically a prophet, COUNTLESS Hindu Prophets, the Jain Saints, legendary Rapist shamans, and the even the spiritual leaders who would later go on to form the Shinto theocratic dynasty. Africans had Babalawos and the Orisha. Maybe research pagan history for even 15 minutes, instead of talking to chatbots.
I haven't dismissed other religions, rather, I'm saying that there's no sign of "Abrahamic-ness" in them, nothing that shows Abrahamic religions were universal. Moreover, most of these traditions were not prophet-centered, instead, certain wise or moral teachers were regarded as giving ethical or social guidance. Even Buddha isn't meant to be a prophet. The Abrahamic religions' attempts to portray them as "distorted prophets" only raise the question: what happened afterward? Why wasn't their tradition preserved or reformed like judaism? In the end, nothing changes.
You are calling the rituals, traditions, and revered figures of other cultures a "religion", whereas the definition of religion for them is very different from the Abrahamic notion of religion.
>One of the MAIN POINTS of Christianity was telling Jews that they were not inherently special and that all humans have the same care from God. Daring to suggest it made Jews so livid that they had him crucified. Islam says the same. Only Jews believe that their ethnicity is special, because they are an ethnic religion (as well as being greedy, self-centered narcissists). That's really just how ethnic religions work. Hindus say similar things, as do various Native Americans.
I'm not concerned with whether christianity claimed to be universal or not. What matters is that Jesus himself was essentially among the jews. Why was there such an excessive focus on them that a new religion had to emerge just to "reform" the jews (the previous religion)?
If they truly are the chosen people, then divine justice is invalid in any case, because a whole new religion appeared merely to straighten them back onto their own path. If they were such a troublesome people, then logically they should have been wiped out entirely, just as god is said to have decided for other peoples.(for example in the big flood)
And if they were not meant to be destroyed, then others should also have received the same level of divine attention. Israel was certainly not the cradle of civilization or morality, yet 99% of the prophets came from that same region.
>That's what Jesus said. The thing you are taking about us exclusive to Judaism, not Christianity or Islam. It's a Jewish thing, not an "Abrahamic" thing.
So you believe that in Iran, China, Africa, northern Europe, America, and so on, there was the same level of divine attention as in israel? I don't think so. At the very least, the fact that you and I can name at least ten prophets, all of whom were jewish, already shows who received divine attention according to the Abrahamic perspective.
>Well, According to Mormons, who are technically "Abrahamic" there were prophets all over the world, especially in the Americas, but the demon-worshipping Native Americans just murdered all of the Christians. That's just an example of how not every interpretation of the vast net of "Abrahamic" religions do not fit into your narrow worldview.
Well, according to some islamic narrations, in a single day, several hundred prophets were killed by a jewish tribe. Someone like George (Jirjis) was killed and resurrected over 70 times in different jigsaw ways, and in the end, god still sent them another prophet. But when a bunch of christians were killed by the Mayans, no one was sent to them afterward. Don't you think this narrative might be more of a religious justification to ease the conscience over the killing of indigenous people?
>Again, again, and again, none of this is "Abrahamic". Literally every argument here could be applied to Zoroastrianism if you wanted, or any religion for that matter.
I believe that since god is incomprehensible, unprovable, and impossible to refute, creating a completely correct religion to understand god is inherently impossible. I haven't endorsed any other religion, I've only critiqued the Abrahamic religions here. You speak as if I don't have the right to reject religion X just because religion Y can also be rejected. I don't care, because I know all religions are open to criticism.
>>8993
>are you the iranbro?
Yeah, short time, no see.
>all of the sudden lost your interest in islam?
First, I said I've been in doubt for two years, I just didn't express it until I reached certainty. So it wasn't sudden. Second, I can still prove islam better than my religious guys and refute it better than they can. I see no reason to become a "third apostate", islam itself challenges its critics, so I critique it from within, either to reform myself or the muslim community. I still believe that a religion must exist for now so that society doesn't collapse around its moral framework. However, from now on, if I have time in debates, I will participate to indirectly critique the Abrahamic religions so that reform can eventually come from others.
>i have a bit of a problem with abrahamic religions...
I have the same fundamental problems with religions in general. That's why I believe no religion is truly right, because they all claim to be complete while they're clearly incomplete. In my view, either god's moral standards are unknown and we're never meant to fully understand them (at least not in this life), or maybe our world is actually non‑divine by nature.
Sometimes I even worry that I might be living in some kind of "main character syndrome" world, where everyone else is just background for me, but the fact that nothing really changes with that awareness shows it's probably not the case.
Either way, life is still the same normal life as before, it's just that silly hope is gone.
>are you the iranbro?
Yeah, short time, no see.
>all of the sudden lost your interest in islam?
First, I said I've been in doubt for two years, I just didn't express it until I reached certainty. So it wasn't sudden. Second, I can still prove islam better than my religious guys and refute it better than they can. I see no reason to become a "third apostate", islam itself challenges its critics, so I critique it from within, either to reform myself or the muslim community. I still believe that a religion must exist for now so that society doesn't collapse around its moral framework. However, from now on, if I have time in debates, I will participate to indirectly critique the Abrahamic religions so that reform can eventually come from others.
>i have a bit of a problem with abrahamic religions...
I have the same fundamental problems with religions in general. That's why I believe no religion is truly right, because they all claim to be complete while they're clearly incomplete. In my view, either god's moral standards are unknown and we're never meant to fully understand them (at least not in this life), or maybe our world is actually non‑divine by nature.
Sometimes I even worry that I might be living in some kind of "main character syndrome" world, where everyone else is just background for me, but the fact that nothing really changes with that awareness shows it's probably not the case.
Either way, life is still the same normal life as before, it's just that silly hope is gone.
Christianity, those that believe Jesus Christ is a faithful representative of God and all that entails, is full of people who are not but claim they are who don't know any better.
God has real tangible relationship with those who have the Holy Ghost inside them.
Jewryism it's about trying and failing at following the dividing line of what makes something not bad, and proceed to rules lawyer about it.
Mohammadism is about why testing the spirits (and any information), consulting God and most importantly coming to Him is required is vital.
Cuckistainism is about removing God to suck out all there is of desperate people while pretending to be Christian.
God has real tangible relationship with those who have the Holy Ghost inside them.
Jewryism it's about trying and failing at following the dividing line of what makes something not bad, and proceed to rules lawyer about it.
Mohammadism is about why testing the spirits (and any information), consulting God and most importantly coming to Him is required is vital.
Cuckistainism is about removing God to suck out all there is of desperate people while pretending to be Christian.
>>8996
>This topic focuses on Abrahamic religions because I know these concepts well
Evidently not.
>Also, the most populous religions today that claim to be complete are Abrahamic. You don't really expect me to start criticizing hinduism or paganism here, do you??
Hinduism is one of the worlds most populous religions, and it claims to be complete.
>No one's beliefs are going to change after a damn half an hour of chatting!
Exactly, which is why it wasn't worth bringing up.
>The fact that they were ultimately willing to accept it means my point wasn't entirely wrong.
Untrue.
Consider reading tea leafs instead.
>You yourself shortly after claimed that this is the definition of god in every religion
I did not say that.
>you essentially agree that this definition should be common among the abrahamic religions
No. I disagree.
>It doesn't matter if the definition, name, or origin of god differs.
No, it very much does matter. The unique concepts of God drastically impact the very fundamentals of their moral systems.
>All of them agree on the basic idea that Yahweh, the Father, and Allah are the same god who sent the flood to Noah and sent thousands of prophets to the jews
They make references to a book 4k years ago. By that logic you may as well say that Hinduism and Hellenism are the same religion because they're both based on the Vedas.
>the essence and main content are the same
They are drastically different content based on entirely different roots (Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, Caananite Paganism).
>I want to draw conclusions from the part that is broad and applies to all, leaving no excuses.
And that's the flaw in your logic. You completely ignore the complexities, contradictions and nuances that don't fit your limited worldview.
>Your link was useful, but it essentially says the same thing I'm saying. The abrahamic religions share the same core roots, but they've been distorted and influenced by different concepts and rituals.
That is the OPPOSITE of what the link says. They have completely separate roots, but later adopted similar mythologies based on a particular set of scripture, even though their nature is completely different.
>post-humanism
Post-humanism is not a moral system.
>agnostics
That's just atheism without confidence.
>"God is righteous beyond human logic."
Hellenism says the exact same thing, even though Zeus rapes maiden for sport. Lots of religions day this.
>it becomes a contradiction
Again, not exclusive to these three religions.
>As a result, the person has no choice but to concede under pressure and accept that, fundamentally, they cannot logically or faith-wise distinguish themselves from, say, a viking who believes in Valhalla.
.... Okay? What's the problem with that? It's called humility.
>Checkmate!
You sound like a redditor.
>Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism
Confucianism is not a religion.
Buddhism is literally named after the founding prophet. It also grandfathers in most of Hindu cosmology because it's based on Hinduism.
Shintoism had a whole pantheon and hundreds of prophets, as well as divine laws.
>European pagan religions generally portrayed guidance as coming from beings far beyond human power but possessing human-like moral traits, beings that humans relied on out of fear or a desire for power.
What an ignorant take.
Let's use Zeus as
Zeus, despite his behavior, is the uncontested arbitor of objective justice. Beside his throne are the two justices of "Human Justice" and "Divine Justice", both of which he controls. That is because he, as the father of the gods, has the cosmic role of being the center and source of all morality and justice in all of the universe.
As the other post says, Christianity has several things in common with Hellenism.
>Indigenous religions of the Americas and Africa were mostly oral, tribe-based ethical traditions
The medium in which it's passed down doesn't make them any different.
>lacking a clear structure or well-defined concepts, instead, they were largely relative and non-systematic.
No, that's just plain wrong. Do you even have a shred of evidence for that? You just claimed that hundreds of not thousands of religions across history lacked defined structures and moral systems, when we have thousands of years of archeological evidence to the contrary.
>This topic focuses on Abrahamic religions because I know these concepts well
Evidently not.
>Also, the most populous religions today that claim to be complete are Abrahamic. You don't really expect me to start criticizing hinduism or paganism here, do you??
Hinduism is one of the worlds most populous religions, and it claims to be complete.
>No one's beliefs are going to change after a damn half an hour of chatting!
Exactly, which is why it wasn't worth bringing up.
>The fact that they were ultimately willing to accept it means my point wasn't entirely wrong.
Untrue.
Consider reading tea leafs instead.
>You yourself shortly after claimed that this is the definition of god in every religion
I did not say that.
>you essentially agree that this definition should be common among the abrahamic religions
No. I disagree.
>It doesn't matter if the definition, name, or origin of god differs.
No, it very much does matter. The unique concepts of God drastically impact the very fundamentals of their moral systems.
>All of them agree on the basic idea that Yahweh, the Father, and Allah are the same god who sent the flood to Noah and sent thousands of prophets to the jews
They make references to a book 4k years ago. By that logic you may as well say that Hinduism and Hellenism are the same religion because they're both based on the Vedas.
>the essence and main content are the same
They are drastically different content based on entirely different roots (Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, Caananite Paganism).
>I want to draw conclusions from the part that is broad and applies to all, leaving no excuses.
And that's the flaw in your logic. You completely ignore the complexities, contradictions and nuances that don't fit your limited worldview.
>Your link was useful, but it essentially says the same thing I'm saying. The abrahamic religions share the same core roots, but they've been distorted and influenced by different concepts and rituals.
That is the OPPOSITE of what the link says. They have completely separate roots, but later adopted similar mythologies based on a particular set of scripture, even though their nature is completely different.
>post-humanism
Post-humanism is not a moral system.
>agnostics
That's just atheism without confidence.
>"God is righteous beyond human logic."
Hellenism says the exact same thing, even though Zeus rapes maiden for sport. Lots of religions day this.
>it becomes a contradiction
Again, not exclusive to these three religions.
>As a result, the person has no choice but to concede under pressure and accept that, fundamentally, they cannot logically or faith-wise distinguish themselves from, say, a viking who believes in Valhalla.
.... Okay? What's the problem with that? It's called humility.
>Checkmate!
You sound like a redditor.
>Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism
Confucianism is not a religion.
Buddhism is literally named after the founding prophet. It also grandfathers in most of Hindu cosmology because it's based on Hinduism.
Shintoism had a whole pantheon and hundreds of prophets, as well as divine laws.
>European pagan religions generally portrayed guidance as coming from beings far beyond human power but possessing human-like moral traits, beings that humans relied on out of fear or a desire for power.
What an ignorant take.
Let's use Zeus as
Zeus, despite his behavior, is the uncontested arbitor of objective justice. Beside his throne are the two justices of "Human Justice" and "Divine Justice", both of which he controls. That is because he, as the father of the gods, has the cosmic role of being the center and source of all morality and justice in all of the universe.
As the other post says, Christianity has several things in common with Hellenism.
>Indigenous religions of the Americas and Africa were mostly oral, tribe-based ethical traditions
The medium in which it's passed down doesn't make them any different.
>lacking a clear structure or well-defined concepts, instead, they were largely relative and non-systematic.
No, that's just plain wrong. Do you even have a shred of evidence for that? You just claimed that hundreds of not thousands of religions across history lacked defined structures and moral systems, when we have thousands of years of archeological evidence to the contrary.
>>8998
>that does not mean those traditions are 'simple".
The religions were complex and sophisticated, like most human cultures. The way you described them was simple and ignorant.
>A Maya, for example, might find it strange that we have such a "simple" religion that does not even hold sacrificial rituals.
That's not even true. Jews still make blood sacrifices, for the same reason Mayans did: they believe that blood has to be spilled to atone for sins and appease God, and blood is the only thing valuable enough to offer God.
Christianity is founded on the concept of human sacrifice, that being the sacrifice of one particular human: Jesus, who had to die to stone for the sins of all of mankind.
Muslims do human sacrifice too, but they just call it "honor killing".
And nothing about the presence or absence of human sacrifice makes a religion more or less simple.
>You cannot judge my definition from that perspective, because my point is specifically about Abrahamic religions
No, I can, because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding and appreciation of not only of the "Abrahamic" religions, but all other religions mentioned as well.
>From the Abrahamic perspective, is not the tradition of human sacrifice considered a bloody and ignorant practice?
Jews literally kill goyim for sports as a form of human sacrifice.
Muslims decapitate infidels in bloody rituals to demonstrate the power of their God.
The only ones who don't make sacrifices are Christians (because Jesus did it for them), and even they ritualistically consume the flesh and blood of their sacrifice.
>I'm saying that there's no sign of "Abrahamic-ness" in them, nothing that shows Abrahamic religions were universal.
Then you have failed to see the parallels between cultures, despite my repeated attempts to make them clear.
>most of these traditions were not prophet-centered
Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism are highly prophet-centered. They're all about their Gurus and saints.
>Buddha isn't meant to be a prophet.
He functionally is one in Buddhist society, especially Tibet, even though he did not intend to be.
>You are calling the rituals, traditions, and revered figures of other cultures a "religion", whereas the definition of religion for them is very different from the Abrahamic notion of religion.
The definition of Religion isn't even consistent among Christians, Muslims and Jews
Religion in Judaism: being born Jewish and following Jewish laws
Religion In Christianity: being baptized and accepting Jesus as savior
Religion in Islam: being born at all, and following the rules set by God.
>If they truly are the chosen people
They are not the "Chosen people". That is a modern distortion.
>others should also have received the same level of divine attention.
Ask a Mormon.
>So you believe that in Iran, China, Africa, northern Europe, America, and so on, there was the same level of divine attention as in israel?
I would say ask another Mormon.
>Don't you think this narrative might be more of a religious justification to ease the conscience over the killing of indigenous people?
You are talking about four separate religions, and you act confused about inconsistent narratives? Hmmm, almost as if they're completely different worldviews.
>that does not mean those traditions are 'simple".
The religions were complex and sophisticated, like most human cultures. The way you described them was simple and ignorant.
>A Maya, for example, might find it strange that we have such a "simple" religion that does not even hold sacrificial rituals.
That's not even true. Jews still make blood sacrifices, for the same reason Mayans did: they believe that blood has to be spilled to atone for sins and appease God, and blood is the only thing valuable enough to offer God.
Christianity is founded on the concept of human sacrifice, that being the sacrifice of one particular human: Jesus, who had to die to stone for the sins of all of mankind.
Muslims do human sacrifice too, but they just call it "honor killing".
And nothing about the presence or absence of human sacrifice makes a religion more or less simple.
>You cannot judge my definition from that perspective, because my point is specifically about Abrahamic religions
No, I can, because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding and appreciation of not only of the "Abrahamic" religions, but all other religions mentioned as well.
>From the Abrahamic perspective, is not the tradition of human sacrifice considered a bloody and ignorant practice?
Jews literally kill goyim for sports as a form of human sacrifice.
Muslims decapitate infidels in bloody rituals to demonstrate the power of their God.
The only ones who don't make sacrifices are Christians (because Jesus did it for them), and even they ritualistically consume the flesh and blood of their sacrifice.
>I'm saying that there's no sign of "Abrahamic-ness" in them, nothing that shows Abrahamic religions were universal.
Then you have failed to see the parallels between cultures, despite my repeated attempts to make them clear.
>most of these traditions were not prophet-centered
Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism are highly prophet-centered. They're all about their Gurus and saints.
>Buddha isn't meant to be a prophet.
He functionally is one in Buddhist society, especially Tibet, even though he did not intend to be.
>You are calling the rituals, traditions, and revered figures of other cultures a "religion", whereas the definition of religion for them is very different from the Abrahamic notion of religion.
The definition of Religion isn't even consistent among Christians, Muslims and Jews
Religion in Judaism: being born Jewish and following Jewish laws
Religion In Christianity: being baptized and accepting Jesus as savior
Religion in Islam: being born at all, and following the rules set by God.
>If they truly are the chosen people
They are not the "Chosen people". That is a modern distortion.
>others should also have received the same level of divine attention.
Ask a Mormon.
>So you believe that in Iran, China, Africa, northern Europe, America, and so on, there was the same level of divine attention as in israel?
I would say ask another Mormon.
>Don't you think this narrative might be more of a religious justification to ease the conscience over the killing of indigenous people?
You are talking about four separate religions, and you act confused about inconsistent narratives? Hmmm, almost as if they're completely different worldviews.
>>9001
Here we are discussing theory, not practical implementation.
I have already said that you cannot suddenly remove Abrahamic religions from society by force and just leave people on their own to adopt non-religious ideas. Society is not ready for that yet, because it would eventually lead either to apathy or to moral decay.
Yes, at the moment Abrahamic religions do help prevent a complete moral collapse of society in a practical sense, but that does not prove that they are inherently true or divine. My argument is that Abrahamic religions contain contradictions, therefore, contrary to their own claims, they are not complete, and that means they are not divine.
Theoretical discussions help society mature over time and gradually prepare it to move beyond these religions, rather than abandoning them all at once.
When you bring up the social problems caused by suddenly removing Abrahamic religions, you are shifting the discussion, because I am not talking about practical "what should be done", but about theoretical critique.
It is similar to how quantum physics exposes the flaws in newtonian physics. You cannot argue that quantum physics should be rejected just because it is complex or abstract. Yes, newtonian physics is extremely useful in practice, but that usefulness does not eliminate its fundamental flaws.
Here we are discussing theory, not practical implementation.
I have already said that you cannot suddenly remove Abrahamic religions from society by force and just leave people on their own to adopt non-religious ideas. Society is not ready for that yet, because it would eventually lead either to apathy or to moral decay.
Yes, at the moment Abrahamic religions do help prevent a complete moral collapse of society in a practical sense, but that does not prove that they are inherently true or divine. My argument is that Abrahamic religions contain contradictions, therefore, contrary to their own claims, they are not complete, and that means they are not divine.
Theoretical discussions help society mature over time and gradually prepare it to move beyond these religions, rather than abandoning them all at once.
When you bring up the social problems caused by suddenly removing Abrahamic religions, you are shifting the discussion, because I am not talking about practical "what should be done", but about theoretical critique.
It is similar to how quantum physics exposes the flaws in newtonian physics. You cannot argue that quantum physics should be rejected just because it is complex or abstract. Yes, newtonian physics is extremely useful in practice, but that usefulness does not eliminate its fundamental flaws.
>>9004
>My argument is that Abrahamic religions contain contradictions
All religions have contradictions, especially from the perspective of those who do not practice them. This is not an "Abrahamic" thing.
>therefore, contrary to their own claims, they are not complete, and that means they are not divine.
That's a silly take, but sure, whatever you want to believe.
>I am not talking about practical
This is supposed to be a self improvement board, m8.
>It is similar to how quantum physics exposes the flaws in newtonian physics. You cannot argue that quantum physics should be rejected just because it is complex or abstract. Yes, newtonian physics is extremely useful in practice, but that usefulness does not eliminate its fundamental flaws.
You could also say that either model is only flawed due to lack of human understanding of cosmic forces in the universe, and that either physical model might make more sense once people fully understand it.
>My argument is that Abrahamic religions contain contradictions
All religions have contradictions, especially from the perspective of those who do not practice them. This is not an "Abrahamic" thing.
>therefore, contrary to their own claims, they are not complete, and that means they are not divine.
That's a silly take, but sure, whatever you want to believe.
>I am not talking about practical
This is supposed to be a self improvement board, m8.
>It is similar to how quantum physics exposes the flaws in newtonian physics. You cannot argue that quantum physics should be rejected just because it is complex or abstract. Yes, newtonian physics is extremely useful in practice, but that usefulness does not eliminate its fundamental flaws.
You could also say that either model is only flawed due to lack of human understanding of cosmic forces in the universe, and that either physical model might make more sense once people fully understand it.
>>9002
Sorry for my delayed replies.
>Evidently not
We'll see
>Hinduism is one of the worlds most populous religions, and it claims to be complete.
Abrahamic religions are more populous and more widespread than Hinduism.
>Exactly, which is why it wasn't worth bringing up.
I said that part deliberately so that if someone felt I sounded a bit "algorithmic", they wouldn't immediately think they're some Sherlock Holmes who's figured out I used ai to organize my thoughts. Some people, instead of trying to respond to the actual argument, latch onto that point just to dodge the discussion. I tried not to leave them any excuse to nitpick.
>Untrue. Consider reading tea leafs instead.
This same thing happened a few months ago about grok's opinion on the kikes. Back then, why weren't you saying these things? So in the end, what do you actually believe? Can they be somewhat worthy of consideration, or does all this billion dollar development ultimately make them even less logical than a tea leaf??
>I did not say that.
>No. I disagree.
It seems like you're denying it. Let me show you:
I considered this as the definition of the Abrahamic God here:
>What Abrahamic religions actually claim;
>They don't just say 'god exists'.
>They claim that:
>God actively intervenes in human history,
>God sends prophets to guide people,
>God gives laws and moral commands,
>God judges humans based on the guidance they received,
>God is perfectly just
You yourself, in response, said that this definition of God exists in every religion:
>ALL RELIGIONS claim this. These concepts are not exclusive to "Abrahamic" religions at all.
I had confined the definition to the scope of Abrahamic religions, and you extended this scope to other religions as well. In the end, it comes back to the same. I say natural numbers are real, and you say basically every conventional number, even irrational numbers, are valid. Okay, so are natural numbers real or not after all?...
Although in the end, I disagree with extending this definition to all religions. As a simple example, it doesn' seem that the Hellenists considered their gods to be fair and just.
>No, it very much does matter. The unique concepts of God drastically impact the very fundamentals of their moral systems.
You keep trying to justify with definitional differences. It doesn't matter how the cause and agent are interpreted (Yahweh, the Father, Allah, Baal, Vishnu, Mazda, Zeus, Odin, or others...), what matters is that the Abrahamic religions fundamentally agree on something like Noah's flood, so the object is the same. The problem is that the effect is incompatible with the cause in any case. If Mithra had also sent a flood that wiped out everything, or sent all her prophets to a single region and people, the same critique would apply to her. You keep going off on tangents, it doesn't matter what the name or definition is, the outcome they believe in is the same, and that's what my critique addresses.
>They make references to a book 4k years ago.
They were created in different time periods, and yet they also share common points. When these points remain the same despite such temporal and ethnic distances, they must essentially be uncorrupted. Although the details differ, I discussed the general aspects in the topic that are accepted by all. Even within these simple generalities, contradictions are apparent. You yourself even acknowledge that they are distorted, so why don't you consider that maybe they aren't divine at all? The moral contradictions with the claimed justice are evident. This has nothing to do with whether other concepts are distorted, when distortions exist even in the shared concepts, the whole thing is essentially invalid.
>Hinduism and Hellenism are the same religion because they're both based on the Vedas.
Your problem is that because you see some noticeable similarities between these religions, you assume their roots must be the same. No, they don't share a common Vedic origin. هر گردی، گردو نیست. But if, hypothetically, it were true, then the parts that are common between Hellenism and Hinduism (if anything is common) would be the concepts of the Vedic religions, since despite spatial and temporal distances, they haven't changed. This is exactly what I've said about the Abrahamic religions and criticized based on those concepts. It's interesting that I even wrote the definition in the thread, yet you act as if we're talking about three religions from three different planets!
>They are drastically different content based on entirely different roots (Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, Caananite Paganism).
They are influenced by different ideas, not based on those roots. Notice the difference.
>And that's the flaw in your logic. You completely ignore the complexities, contradictions and nuances that don't fit your limited worldview.
Because those details and complexities are the parts that are not shared and are differentiated! Shared stories, like the story of Noah or exactly which and how many prophets were jewish, are somewhat ambiguous, but the parts that are clear can still be used for critique.
If I wanted to work in a more complex and specialized way, I would bring verses from the old testament, new testament, and the quran. As I've said before, the book of Joshua can even support my point, but since Tanakh is rejected by islam, you can't make general statements. (Although some verses, like verses 20–22 of surah Al-Ma’ida, refer to events before this book and could probably confirm the events in the book itself.)
Sorry for my delayed replies.
>Evidently not
We'll see
>Hinduism is one of the worlds most populous religions, and it claims to be complete.
Abrahamic religions are more populous and more widespread than Hinduism.
>Exactly, which is why it wasn't worth bringing up.
I said that part deliberately so that if someone felt I sounded a bit "algorithmic", they wouldn't immediately think they're some Sherlock Holmes who's figured out I used ai to organize my thoughts. Some people, instead of trying to respond to the actual argument, latch onto that point just to dodge the discussion. I tried not to leave them any excuse to nitpick.
>Untrue. Consider reading tea leafs instead.
This same thing happened a few months ago about grok's opinion on the kikes. Back then, why weren't you saying these things? So in the end, what do you actually believe? Can they be somewhat worthy of consideration, or does all this billion dollar development ultimately make them even less logical than a tea leaf??
>I did not say that.
>No. I disagree.
It seems like you're denying it. Let me show you:
I considered this as the definition of the Abrahamic God here:
>What Abrahamic religions actually claim;
>They don't just say 'god exists'.
>They claim that:
>God actively intervenes in human history,
>God sends prophets to guide people,
>God gives laws and moral commands,
>God judges humans based on the guidance they received,
>God is perfectly just
You yourself, in response, said that this definition of God exists in every religion:
>ALL RELIGIONS claim this. These concepts are not exclusive to "Abrahamic" religions at all.
I had confined the definition to the scope of Abrahamic religions, and you extended this scope to other religions as well. In the end, it comes back to the same. I say natural numbers are real, and you say basically every conventional number, even irrational numbers, are valid. Okay, so are natural numbers real or not after all?...
Although in the end, I disagree with extending this definition to all religions. As a simple example, it doesn' seem that the Hellenists considered their gods to be fair and just.
>No, it very much does matter. The unique concepts of God drastically impact the very fundamentals of their moral systems.
You keep trying to justify with definitional differences. It doesn't matter how the cause and agent are interpreted (Yahweh, the Father, Allah, Baal, Vishnu, Mazda, Zeus, Odin, or others...), what matters is that the Abrahamic religions fundamentally agree on something like Noah's flood, so the object is the same. The problem is that the effect is incompatible with the cause in any case. If Mithra had also sent a flood that wiped out everything, or sent all her prophets to a single region and people, the same critique would apply to her. You keep going off on tangents, it doesn't matter what the name or definition is, the outcome they believe in is the same, and that's what my critique addresses.
>They make references to a book 4k years ago.
They were created in different time periods, and yet they also share common points. When these points remain the same despite such temporal and ethnic distances, they must essentially be uncorrupted. Although the details differ, I discussed the general aspects in the topic that are accepted by all. Even within these simple generalities, contradictions are apparent. You yourself even acknowledge that they are distorted, so why don't you consider that maybe they aren't divine at all? The moral contradictions with the claimed justice are evident. This has nothing to do with whether other concepts are distorted, when distortions exist even in the shared concepts, the whole thing is essentially invalid.
>Hinduism and Hellenism are the same religion because they're both based on the Vedas.
Your problem is that because you see some noticeable similarities between these religions, you assume their roots must be the same. No, they don't share a common Vedic origin. هر گردی، گردو نیست. But if, hypothetically, it were true, then the parts that are common between Hellenism and Hinduism (if anything is common) would be the concepts of the Vedic religions, since despite spatial and temporal distances, they haven't changed. This is exactly what I've said about the Abrahamic religions and criticized based on those concepts. It's interesting that I even wrote the definition in the thread, yet you act as if we're talking about three religions from three different planets!
>They are drastically different content based on entirely different roots (Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, Caananite Paganism).
They are influenced by different ideas, not based on those roots. Notice the difference.
>And that's the flaw in your logic. You completely ignore the complexities, contradictions and nuances that don't fit your limited worldview.
Because those details and complexities are the parts that are not shared and are differentiated! Shared stories, like the story of Noah or exactly which and how many prophets were jewish, are somewhat ambiguous, but the parts that are clear can still be used for critique.
If I wanted to work in a more complex and specialized way, I would bring verses from the old testament, new testament, and the quran. As I've said before, the book of Joshua can even support my point, but since Tanakh is rejected by islam, you can't make general statements. (Although some verses, like verses 20–22 of surah Al-Ma’ida, refer to events before this book and could probably confirm the events in the book itself.)
>>9002
>That is the OPPOSITE of what the link says. They have completely separate roots, but later adopted similar mythologies based on a particular set of scripture, even though their nature is completely different.
This is what the link said:
>They share similar Genesis stories, but where they diverge is that the concept of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is wildly different, and as such has completely different moral and cultural implications.
>So, even though these three religions share some common mythos...
So again, you have misunderstood. Just because the Abrahamic religions differ in doctrine, location, and time due to various influential factors, it doesn't mean they don't share the same root.
Even the link itself doesn't seem entirely accurate. For example, it claims that islam's understanding of god was influenced by Zoroastrianism, whereas Ahura Mazda promises global justice, not the claim that justice currently exists. Also, in the Zoroastrian view, the world exists in millennia where good and evil are mixed, causing conflict. The victory of truth is promised, but that implies the presence of evil.
The link correctly notes that muslims consider everything essentially from god and islam, and regard anything non-islamic as separate. Zoroastrianism, however, sees the existence of evil as inherent and not from Ahura Mazda, but from Ahriman. If we consider later secondary interpretations by some magi, mythologically there emerges a sort of gray, higher god, from whom Ahura Mazda and Ahriman are born, suggesting a form of duality or semi-divinity for Ahriman.
It's also worth noting that the concepts of div and Ahriman were originally framed to oppose Hindu gods, since Iranians considered them demons (div), while Hindus considered them gods.
Moreover, in the quran, the only reference to Zoroastrians is calling them "Majus", pronounced "Magus" in arabic, which comes from the Zoroastrian priests (magi)! Essentially, the quran was referring to Zoroastrians by the name of their clergy. It's like calling all jews "Rabbis" or all christians "Priests"! If the quran had truly been influenced by Zoroastrianism, it wouldn't have made such simple linguistic mistakes.
>Post-humanism is not a moral system.
No one claimed that this is a moral system, rather, it's a semantic concept that must exist in the mind so that a person understands their place. History has shown that humans have never reached anything superior and never will, yet in their desire for superiority, they have only caused themselves suffering. Unlike classical post-humanism, I believe one should adopt a kind of "meta-trans humanism", so that humans realize that, essentially, there is nothing. In other words, one should understand enough to realize that you understand nothing. My words may seem a bit schizo, but I believe this is the path to truth.
And if you think this is unethical, as I said, it is not necessarily meant to be moral from anyone's perspective, because moral variables are things that humans have created for their own survival. If some think this concept is immoral, it stems from our own moral pride, which is, after all, conventional. Morality exists for survival, nothing more. (to better understand my point, you could research about kin selection a bit.)
>That's just atheism without confidence.
This is not atheism. The worst problem with atheism is exactly its pride and certainty in its views, something that leads to the moral decay and downfall of the individual, or perhaps nihilism and despair.
When a person fundamentally cannot prove anything, they also cannot be proud of it or make claims. Proving or disproving god is inherently impossible, because there is always uncertainty.
Unlike atheism, god is not rejected, rather, one is encouraged to reflect on him, since his existence remains a possibility. Likewise, unlike the despair and meaninglessness(could it be a word?) of atheism, this perspective gives hope for life after death, and unlike the meaningless hope of religions, it does not put a person in blind faith or fabricated expectations.
Your duty is, at the same time, clear yet unclear, and it is precisely this ambiguity that gives meaning to life, unlike other belief systems.
>Hellenism says the exact same thing, even though Zeus rapes maiden for sport. Lots of religions day this.
I said this myself; don't turn my words back on me.
>Again, not exclusive to these three religions.
I'll say it again: there's no need to repeat my words. Whether this applies to a certain religion is irrelevant to our discussion. Right now, we are talking about the Abrahamic religions. I am discussing the danger of a lion. Saying that a wolf is also dangerous has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
>.... Okay? What's the problem with that? It's called humility.
<Don't say accepting defeat, say "humility"...
Why are you dodging the point? You know exactly what I mean, I'm talking about a situation where a person gets stuck in a paradox. You're always focusing on the side issues to distract from the main discussion.
>You sound like a redditor.
Was it bad that I answered your question?? Why do you keep going off on tangents instead of responding to the rest of what I said, and end up just criticizing my writings?
>That is the OPPOSITE of what the link says. They have completely separate roots, but later adopted similar mythologies based on a particular set of scripture, even though their nature is completely different.
This is what the link said:
>They share similar Genesis stories, but where they diverge is that the concept of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is wildly different, and as such has completely different moral and cultural implications.
>So, even though these three religions share some common mythos...
So again, you have misunderstood. Just because the Abrahamic religions differ in doctrine, location, and time due to various influential factors, it doesn't mean they don't share the same root.
Even the link itself doesn't seem entirely accurate. For example, it claims that islam's understanding of god was influenced by Zoroastrianism, whereas Ahura Mazda promises global justice, not the claim that justice currently exists. Also, in the Zoroastrian view, the world exists in millennia where good and evil are mixed, causing conflict. The victory of truth is promised, but that implies the presence of evil.
The link correctly notes that muslims consider everything essentially from god and islam, and regard anything non-islamic as separate. Zoroastrianism, however, sees the existence of evil as inherent and not from Ahura Mazda, but from Ahriman. If we consider later secondary interpretations by some magi, mythologically there emerges a sort of gray, higher god, from whom Ahura Mazda and Ahriman are born, suggesting a form of duality or semi-divinity for Ahriman.
It's also worth noting that the concepts of div and Ahriman were originally framed to oppose Hindu gods, since Iranians considered them demons (div), while Hindus considered them gods.
Moreover, in the quran, the only reference to Zoroastrians is calling them "Majus", pronounced "Magus" in arabic, which comes from the Zoroastrian priests (magi)! Essentially, the quran was referring to Zoroastrians by the name of their clergy. It's like calling all jews "Rabbis" or all christians "Priests"! If the quran had truly been influenced by Zoroastrianism, it wouldn't have made such simple linguistic mistakes.
>Post-humanism is not a moral system.
No one claimed that this is a moral system, rather, it's a semantic concept that must exist in the mind so that a person understands their place. History has shown that humans have never reached anything superior and never will, yet in their desire for superiority, they have only caused themselves suffering. Unlike classical post-humanism, I believe one should adopt a kind of "meta-trans humanism", so that humans realize that, essentially, there is nothing. In other words, one should understand enough to realize that you understand nothing. My words may seem a bit schizo, but I believe this is the path to truth.
And if you think this is unethical, as I said, it is not necessarily meant to be moral from anyone's perspective, because moral variables are things that humans have created for their own survival. If some think this concept is immoral, it stems from our own moral pride, which is, after all, conventional. Morality exists for survival, nothing more. (to better understand my point, you could research about kin selection a bit.)
>That's just atheism without confidence.
This is not atheism. The worst problem with atheism is exactly its pride and certainty in its views, something that leads to the moral decay and downfall of the individual, or perhaps nihilism and despair.
When a person fundamentally cannot prove anything, they also cannot be proud of it or make claims. Proving or disproving god is inherently impossible, because there is always uncertainty.
Unlike atheism, god is not rejected, rather, one is encouraged to reflect on him, since his existence remains a possibility. Likewise, unlike the despair and meaninglessness(could it be a word?) of atheism, this perspective gives hope for life after death, and unlike the meaningless hope of religions, it does not put a person in blind faith or fabricated expectations.
Your duty is, at the same time, clear yet unclear, and it is precisely this ambiguity that gives meaning to life, unlike other belief systems.
>Hellenism says the exact same thing, even though Zeus rapes maiden for sport. Lots of religions day this.
I said this myself; don't turn my words back on me.
>Again, not exclusive to these three religions.
I'll say it again: there's no need to repeat my words. Whether this applies to a certain religion is irrelevant to our discussion. Right now, we are talking about the Abrahamic religions. I am discussing the danger of a lion. Saying that a wolf is also dangerous has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
>.... Okay? What's the problem with that? It's called humility.
<Don't say accepting defeat, say "humility"...
Why are you dodging the point? You know exactly what I mean, I'm talking about a situation where a person gets stuck in a paradox. You're always focusing on the side issues to distract from the main discussion.
>You sound like a redditor.
Was it bad that I answered your question?? Why do you keep going off on tangents instead of responding to the rest of what I said, and end up just criticizing my writings?
>>9002
>Confucianism is not a religion.
>Buddhism is literally named after the founding prophet. It also grandfathers in most of Hindu cosmology because it's based on Hinduism.
>Shintoism had a whole pantheon and hundreds of prophets, as well as divine laws.
Confucianism is considered a religion in general, but separate from Abrahamic definitions.
A practice of self cultivation is not considered a religion from an Abrahamic perspective, because it is essentially passive and lacks multidimensionality.
Shinto is a traditional and local religion.
In all of these, there is no sign of universality (like in the Abrahamic religions) and not even an Abrahamic-style prophet. A moral teacher does not necessarily have to be a prophet! Moreover, Buddhism is essentially atheistic and emphasizes individuality.
Ultimately, this still does not solve the question: with all these damned populations, why were no other prophets sent to reform and preserve them so they wouldn't become what they are now? (Even assuming they were truly prophets.
>What an ignorant take.
No, this literally has been the general definition of these religions.
>Let's use Zeus as. Zeus, despite his behavior, is the uncontested arbitor of objective justice. Beside his throne are the two justices of "Human Justice" and "Divine Justice", both of which he controls. That is because he, as the father of the gods, has the cosmic role of being the center and source of all morality and justice in all of the universe.
You're basically recounting the mental gymnastics of later philosophers and Romans, who tried to reinterpret these concepts to make them acceptable.
By this logic, Baal, Yahweh, and other semitic gods would also be portrayed as just, based on Achaemenid interpretations aimed at gaining legitimacy from their believers.
At least read Homer's stories to understand what Zeus was really like. By your own account, raping half the world while justifying oneself as superior shows no trace of justice.
>As the other post says, Christianity has several things in common with Hellenism.
You speak as if christianity completely branched out from Hellenism. It was influenced, yes, but largely not in its roots.
Its main root ultimately comes from judaism, and if there is any similarity to Hellenism, it probably means that judaism was influenced by Hellenism, not necessarily christianity.
Moreover, after paying closer attention to his statements and noticing mistakes about the two religions I at least know well, I can no longer trust or fully endorse what he said.
>The medium in which it's passed down doesn't make them any different.
The structured nature of a religion indicates divine attention (if you believe that the Abrahamic god sent prophets to them), because a religion becomes more organized and structured when divine attention is directed toward it. If it hasn't reached the level of the jews, then divine attention hasn't been sufficient, and justice is therefore flawed.
By "structured religion", I don't mean to belittle their religion, but rather to highlight its similarity to the Abrahamic model.
>No, that's just plain wrong. Do you even have a shred of evidence for that? You just claimed that hundreds of not thousands of religions across history lacked defined structures and moral systems, when we have thousands of years of archeological evidence to the contrary.
The evidence lies in their moral model, which is not compatible with the Abrahamic moral framework. You've ultimately misunderstood me, thinking I am belittling other religions, whereas the issue is to show the separation of other religions from the Abrahamic ones according to Abrahamic standards. This means the claim of the presence of Abrahamic prophets in other societies is invalid. And if you argue that they were corrupted, then the claim of divine justice is invalid, because god didn't send anyone to correct them, and thus they didn't develop into what they are today.
>The religions were complex and sophisticated, like most human cultures. The way you described them was simple and ignorant.
Because the discussion is not about other religions, the point was to show that no true universalization is observed in the Abrahamic model. By bringing up irrelevant and misunderstood debates about other religions, you're only diverting the topic.
>That's not even true. Jews still make blood sacrifices, for the same reason Mayans did: they believe that blood has to be spilled to atone for sins and appease God, and blood is the only thing valuable enough to offer God. Christianity is founded on the concept of human sacrifice, that being the sacrifice of one particular human: Jesus, who had to die to stone for the sins of all of mankind. Muslims do human sacrifice too, but they just call it "honor killing". And nothing about the presence or absence of human sacrifice makes a religion more or less simple.
You are equivocating and linking anything related to sacrifice or bloodshed directly to ritual sacrifice. Many of these sacrificial concepts have roots in pre-Abrahamic religions and stem from the savage tendencies of humanity. The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, only tried to minimize them, making sacrifice conditional, non-obligatory, and lighter in practice. In contrast, something like Mayan beliefs treats sacrifice as a more fundamental and obligatory concept. Essentially, the Abrahamic religions acted against sacrifice, and the transformations over time, especially when mixed with other ideas, led to changes such as the modification of Jewish sacrificial rituals due to Zoroastrian influence, the same influence that arose to counter ancient Mithraism, because Mithraism held that sacrifices must be performed, as Mitra herself had performed them.
>Confucianism is not a religion.
>Buddhism is literally named after the founding prophet. It also grandfathers in most of Hindu cosmology because it's based on Hinduism.
>Shintoism had a whole pantheon and hundreds of prophets, as well as divine laws.
Confucianism is considered a religion in general, but separate from Abrahamic definitions.
A practice of self cultivation is not considered a religion from an Abrahamic perspective, because it is essentially passive and lacks multidimensionality.
Shinto is a traditional and local religion.
In all of these, there is no sign of universality (like in the Abrahamic religions) and not even an Abrahamic-style prophet. A moral teacher does not necessarily have to be a prophet! Moreover, Buddhism is essentially atheistic and emphasizes individuality.
Ultimately, this still does not solve the question: with all these damned populations, why were no other prophets sent to reform and preserve them so they wouldn't become what they are now? (Even assuming they were truly prophets.
>What an ignorant take.
No, this literally has been the general definition of these religions.
>Let's use Zeus as. Zeus, despite his behavior, is the uncontested arbitor of objective justice. Beside his throne are the two justices of "Human Justice" and "Divine Justice", both of which he controls. That is because he, as the father of the gods, has the cosmic role of being the center and source of all morality and justice in all of the universe.
You're basically recounting the mental gymnastics of later philosophers and Romans, who tried to reinterpret these concepts to make them acceptable.
By this logic, Baal, Yahweh, and other semitic gods would also be portrayed as just, based on Achaemenid interpretations aimed at gaining legitimacy from their believers.
At least read Homer's stories to understand what Zeus was really like. By your own account, raping half the world while justifying oneself as superior shows no trace of justice.
>As the other post says, Christianity has several things in common with Hellenism.
You speak as if christianity completely branched out from Hellenism. It was influenced, yes, but largely not in its roots.
Its main root ultimately comes from judaism, and if there is any similarity to Hellenism, it probably means that judaism was influenced by Hellenism, not necessarily christianity.
Moreover, after paying closer attention to his statements and noticing mistakes about the two religions I at least know well, I can no longer trust or fully endorse what he said.
>The medium in which it's passed down doesn't make them any different.
The structured nature of a religion indicates divine attention (if you believe that the Abrahamic god sent prophets to them), because a religion becomes more organized and structured when divine attention is directed toward it. If it hasn't reached the level of the jews, then divine attention hasn't been sufficient, and justice is therefore flawed.
By "structured religion", I don't mean to belittle their religion, but rather to highlight its similarity to the Abrahamic model.
>No, that's just plain wrong. Do you even have a shred of evidence for that? You just claimed that hundreds of not thousands of religions across history lacked defined structures and moral systems, when we have thousands of years of archeological evidence to the contrary.
The evidence lies in their moral model, which is not compatible with the Abrahamic moral framework. You've ultimately misunderstood me, thinking I am belittling other religions, whereas the issue is to show the separation of other religions from the Abrahamic ones according to Abrahamic standards. This means the claim of the presence of Abrahamic prophets in other societies is invalid. And if you argue that they were corrupted, then the claim of divine justice is invalid, because god didn't send anyone to correct them, and thus they didn't develop into what they are today.
>The religions were complex and sophisticated, like most human cultures. The way you described them was simple and ignorant.
Because the discussion is not about other religions, the point was to show that no true universalization is observed in the Abrahamic model. By bringing up irrelevant and misunderstood debates about other religions, you're only diverting the topic.
>That's not even true. Jews still make blood sacrifices, for the same reason Mayans did: they believe that blood has to be spilled to atone for sins and appease God, and blood is the only thing valuable enough to offer God. Christianity is founded on the concept of human sacrifice, that being the sacrifice of one particular human: Jesus, who had to die to stone for the sins of all of mankind. Muslims do human sacrifice too, but they just call it "honor killing". And nothing about the presence or absence of human sacrifice makes a religion more or less simple.
You are equivocating and linking anything related to sacrifice or bloodshed directly to ritual sacrifice. Many of these sacrificial concepts have roots in pre-Abrahamic religions and stem from the savage tendencies of humanity. The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, only tried to minimize them, making sacrifice conditional, non-obligatory, and lighter in practice. In contrast, something like Mayan beliefs treats sacrifice as a more fundamental and obligatory concept. Essentially, the Abrahamic religions acted against sacrifice, and the transformations over time, especially when mixed with other ideas, led to changes such as the modification of Jewish sacrificial rituals due to Zoroastrian influence, the same influence that arose to counter ancient Mithraism, because Mithraism held that sacrifices must be performed, as Mitra herself had performed them.
>>9002
>No, I can, because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding and appreciation of not only of the "Abrahamic" religions, but all other religions mentioned as well.
No, it's actually you who have a lack of understanding and a misunderstanding. Having some wikipedia information about strange names in religions is not knowledge. Knowledge is recognizing Confucius as a religion outside the Abrahamic definition of religion. Knowledge is understanding Buddhism as a kind of self-focused and atheistic practice. Knowledge is knowing the real Zeus.True knowledge is not taking all the Abrahamic religions and placing them within a closed framework connected only to Roman paganism, Zoroastrianism, and Canaanite religions, based solely on a personal post, which, of course, is flawed.
In the end, you still haven't properly responded to my main points, and instead, you're hopping from one topic to another and talking about other religions' flaws. Stop this whataboutism.
>Jews literally kill goyim for sports as a form of human sacrifice. Muslims decapitate infidels in bloody rituals to demonstrate the power of their God. The only ones who don't make sacrifices are Christians (because Jesus did it for them), and even they ritualistically consume the flesh and blood of their sacrifice.
As I said, the Abrahamic religions acted against this practice as much as possible across different societies. You are essentially trying, through meaningless generalizations and forced analogies, to establish a superficial connection between them just to say: 'they have this too!' while the intent, meaning, and underlying logic behind them are fundamentally different.
>Then you have failed to see the parallels between cultures, despite my repeated attempts to make them clear.
The one who fails to understand is you. With a closed minded view of the origins of, and the influences of other religions on, the Abrahamic religions, you are trying to connect everything in some way in order to prove the universality of the Abrahamic religions. It's like saying that because ping-pong and football both use a ball, there must therefore be a special connection between them. Yes, there is one, their connection is that they are both sports! Likewise, the fact that other religions have gods, clergy, or teachers places them in the category of religion, it does not mean they share meaningful or conceptual connections!
>Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism are highly prophet-centered. They're all about their Gurus and saints.
I'll say it again: moral teachers and seekers of knowledge are not necessarily prophets. Moreover, a prophet refers to someone who follows a unified line of thought and spreads and promotes a single message. Most of these figures each created their own method and path and wove their own understanding of the world. That is precisely why there are thousands of different sects, religions, and belief systems in places like india. This itself shows that they were not prophets, rather, each shared their own way of thinking within a certain framework. By your logic, any philosopher could be considered a prophet, simply because they have their own ideas and followers.
>He functionally is one in Buddhist society, especially Tibet, even though he did not intend to be.
He functions more as a godlike symbol and a savior than as a prophet. As I said, Buddhism is a particular form of atheism.
>The definition of Religion isn't even consistent among Christians, Muslims and Jews. Religion in Judaism: being born Jewish and following Jewish laws. Religion In Christianity: being baptized and...
This definition applies to the followers within these religions, not to the religions themselves. You are essentially trying to suggest that these religions have no particular connection to one another. In fact, the closest counterparts of each Abrahamic religion are the other Abrahamic religions. Their commonality lies specifically in their roots, which is what makes them Abrahamic, and that is exactly what I have been discussing, their shared foundational roots.
>They are not the "Chosen people". That is a modern distortion.
This is an interpretation. Anyone who reads the Bible could arrive at such a reading. Whether it is correct or not depends on why the Abrahamic god spoke in a way that allows for such an interpretation in the first place.
>Ask a Mormon.
>I would say ask another Mormon.
You are taking my general critique of all Abrahamic religions and attributing it to one group from a single branch, then expecting me to accept their claims on this matter, even though there is no evidence for it beyond their own words and it remains nothing more than a claim. It's like telling someone that Batman doesn't exist, and they reply that he does and try to prove it by showing a comic book.
Moreover, even if we assume for the sake of argument that their claim is true, it still does not justify the outcomes and the reality of what actually happened, namely, why divine attention was ultimately not granted to them to the same extent as it was to the jews, so that they could be corrected.
>You are talking about four separate religions, and you act confused about inconsistent narratives? Hmmm, almost as if they're completely different worldviews.
Your response had nothing to do with what I was saying. But one thing is clear: you're still stuck on the idea that because Abrahamic religions are different from each other, they cannot share a common root. How can I explain to you that I am precisely focusing on those common points! Shared stories and narratives, shared claims, and shared outcomes! I am critiquing based on these, and yet you consider my approach "simplified". Well, that's because our assumption is simple! The content itself isn't complex, because the details vary. I am critiquing based on the generalities, otherwise, in the details of each religion, one could claim they don't accept this and derail the entire discussion.
>No, I can, because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding and appreciation of not only of the "Abrahamic" religions, but all other religions mentioned as well.
No, it's actually you who have a lack of understanding and a misunderstanding. Having some wikipedia information about strange names in religions is not knowledge. Knowledge is recognizing Confucius as a religion outside the Abrahamic definition of religion. Knowledge is understanding Buddhism as a kind of self-focused and atheistic practice. Knowledge is knowing the real Zeus.True knowledge is not taking all the Abrahamic religions and placing them within a closed framework connected only to Roman paganism, Zoroastrianism, and Canaanite religions, based solely on a personal post, which, of course, is flawed.
In the end, you still haven't properly responded to my main points, and instead, you're hopping from one topic to another and talking about other religions' flaws. Stop this whataboutism.
>Jews literally kill goyim for sports as a form of human sacrifice. Muslims decapitate infidels in bloody rituals to demonstrate the power of their God. The only ones who don't make sacrifices are Christians (because Jesus did it for them), and even they ritualistically consume the flesh and blood of their sacrifice.
As I said, the Abrahamic religions acted against this practice as much as possible across different societies. You are essentially trying, through meaningless generalizations and forced analogies, to establish a superficial connection between them just to say: 'they have this too!' while the intent, meaning, and underlying logic behind them are fundamentally different.
>Then you have failed to see the parallels between cultures, despite my repeated attempts to make them clear.
The one who fails to understand is you. With a closed minded view of the origins of, and the influences of other religions on, the Abrahamic religions, you are trying to connect everything in some way in order to prove the universality of the Abrahamic religions. It's like saying that because ping-pong and football both use a ball, there must therefore be a special connection between them. Yes, there is one, their connection is that they are both sports! Likewise, the fact that other religions have gods, clergy, or teachers places them in the category of religion, it does not mean they share meaningful or conceptual connections!
>Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism are highly prophet-centered. They're all about their Gurus and saints.
I'll say it again: moral teachers and seekers of knowledge are not necessarily prophets. Moreover, a prophet refers to someone who follows a unified line of thought and spreads and promotes a single message. Most of these figures each created their own method and path and wove their own understanding of the world. That is precisely why there are thousands of different sects, religions, and belief systems in places like india. This itself shows that they were not prophets, rather, each shared their own way of thinking within a certain framework. By your logic, any philosopher could be considered a prophet, simply because they have their own ideas and followers.
>He functionally is one in Buddhist society, especially Tibet, even though he did not intend to be.
He functions more as a godlike symbol and a savior than as a prophet. As I said, Buddhism is a particular form of atheism.
>The definition of Religion isn't even consistent among Christians, Muslims and Jews. Religion in Judaism: being born Jewish and following Jewish laws. Religion In Christianity: being baptized and...
This definition applies to the followers within these religions, not to the religions themselves. You are essentially trying to suggest that these religions have no particular connection to one another. In fact, the closest counterparts of each Abrahamic religion are the other Abrahamic religions. Their commonality lies specifically in their roots, which is what makes them Abrahamic, and that is exactly what I have been discussing, their shared foundational roots.
>They are not the "Chosen people". That is a modern distortion.
This is an interpretation. Anyone who reads the Bible could arrive at such a reading. Whether it is correct or not depends on why the Abrahamic god spoke in a way that allows for such an interpretation in the first place.
>Ask a Mormon.
>I would say ask another Mormon.
You are taking my general critique of all Abrahamic religions and attributing it to one group from a single branch, then expecting me to accept their claims on this matter, even though there is no evidence for it beyond their own words and it remains nothing more than a claim. It's like telling someone that Batman doesn't exist, and they reply that he does and try to prove it by showing a comic book.
Moreover, even if we assume for the sake of argument that their claim is true, it still does not justify the outcomes and the reality of what actually happened, namely, why divine attention was ultimately not granted to them to the same extent as it was to the jews, so that they could be corrected.
>You are talking about four separate religions, and you act confused about inconsistent narratives? Hmmm, almost as if they're completely different worldviews.
Your response had nothing to do with what I was saying. But one thing is clear: you're still stuck on the idea that because Abrahamic religions are different from each other, they cannot share a common root. How can I explain to you that I am precisely focusing on those common points! Shared stories and narratives, shared claims, and shared outcomes! I am critiquing based on these, and yet you consider my approach "simplified". Well, that's because our assumption is simple! The content itself isn't complex, because the details vary. I am critiquing based on the generalities, otherwise, in the details of each religion, one could claim they don't accept this and derail the entire discussion.
>>9004
>All religions have contradictions, especially from the perspective of those who do not practice them. This is not an "Abrahamic" thing.
Another whataboutism...
>That's a silly take, but sure, whatever you want to believe.
When the god of a religion claims to be perfect and flawless, and then a flaw is found within that claim, it becomes clear that the religion is not divine. Using this same logic, we can critique religions that existed thousands of years ago and later disappeared!
No matter how small the flaw is, for something that is supposed to be flawless, any imperfection is still a flaw, which means it contradicts the claim, indicating it is incorrect, and being incorrect means it is not divine. Because a god who claims to be flawless should not make mistakes.
A calculator, for example, must be flawless in its calculations. If it calculates 1000+1000 as 2001, it may be a small error in addition, but it is still a flaw, which means the calculator is broken.
Essentially, what's silly is believing in a religion that you know has flaws.
>This is supposed to be a self improvement board, m8.
Many concepts started as theory and eventually became practical. Theoretical discussions and the critique of Abrahamic religions over time can prepare society to move beyond these concepts with minimal damage, because at present, society should not be forced to separate from these religions. There is no need for a replacement, but it is necessary to raise individual and social capacity to be able to reject Abrahamic religions. Belief in something that is fundamentally flawed and non-divine is a weakness that must be corrected for personal growth.(Isn't that for /üb/?)
This process may take time, but that does not mean it should not be pursued. Many concepts in plasma and nuclear physics also took years to move from theory to practical and applied stages.
>You could also say that either model is only flawed due to lack of human understanding of cosmic forces in the universe, and that either physical model might make more sense once people fully understand it.
It is entirely possible. Although we are still lacking information, there are not many contradictions in the data. There were contradictions in Newtonian physics that essentially arose because of quantum physics, and more contradictions may appear in the future. The important point is that no one claims that we currently possess complete knowledge, know everything, and make no mistakes, therefore, there is no absolute certainty, and that is precisely what leaves room for progress.
Abrahamic religions, however, claim flawlessness, completeness, and omniscience. This is exactly the main weakness of Abrahamic religions.(And please don't say again 'this isn't just about Abrahamic religions' or 'what about X religion?...' or something like this. I know, but this topic is about the most populated religions, Abrahamic religions.
>All religions have contradictions, especially from the perspective of those who do not practice them. This is not an "Abrahamic" thing.
Another whataboutism...
>That's a silly take, but sure, whatever you want to believe.
When the god of a religion claims to be perfect and flawless, and then a flaw is found within that claim, it becomes clear that the religion is not divine. Using this same logic, we can critique religions that existed thousands of years ago and later disappeared!
No matter how small the flaw is, for something that is supposed to be flawless, any imperfection is still a flaw, which means it contradicts the claim, indicating it is incorrect, and being incorrect means it is not divine. Because a god who claims to be flawless should not make mistakes.
A calculator, for example, must be flawless in its calculations. If it calculates 1000+1000 as 2001, it may be a small error in addition, but it is still a flaw, which means the calculator is broken.
Essentially, what's silly is believing in a religion that you know has flaws.
>This is supposed to be a self improvement board, m8.
Many concepts started as theory and eventually became practical. Theoretical discussions and the critique of Abrahamic religions over time can prepare society to move beyond these concepts with minimal damage, because at present, society should not be forced to separate from these religions. There is no need for a replacement, but it is necessary to raise individual and social capacity to be able to reject Abrahamic religions. Belief in something that is fundamentally flawed and non-divine is a weakness that must be corrected for personal growth.(Isn't that for /üb/?)
This process may take time, but that does not mean it should not be pursued. Many concepts in plasma and nuclear physics also took years to move from theory to practical and applied stages.
>You could also say that either model is only flawed due to lack of human understanding of cosmic forces in the universe, and that either physical model might make more sense once people fully understand it.
It is entirely possible. Although we are still lacking information, there are not many contradictions in the data. There were contradictions in Newtonian physics that essentially arose because of quantum physics, and more contradictions may appear in the future. The important point is that no one claims that we currently possess complete knowledge, know everything, and make no mistakes, therefore, there is no absolute certainty, and that is precisely what leaves room for progress.
Abrahamic religions, however, claim flawlessness, completeness, and omniscience. This is exactly the main weakness of Abrahamic religions.(And please don't say again 'this isn't just about Abrahamic religions' or 'what about X religion?...' or something like this. I know, but this topic is about the most populated religions, Abrahamic religions.
>>9002
>>9004
And btw, since you are so eager to keep referring to other people's posts, and your mind seems quite locked onto those discussed topics, let me also refer you to a post on an old Iranian forum. I don't fully agree with everything in it, but it's an interesting post. And since I didn't feel like translating it myself, I used a translator:
Some researchers believe that the religion of Judaism was copied from the myths and legends of the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Aryans (Vedic–Brahmanic Sanskrit texts, Avestan texts, Mitanni, Minoan and Greek) and Assyrians, and then entered the Old Testament and New Testament.
Liberals suppress researchers with fabricated and misleading phrases such as “racism is bad” or “you are antisemitic”!
Islam has roots in Christianity and Judaism. But what are the roots of Judaism itself?! Is Judaism a divine religion?!
The existence of some Abrahamic religious figures such as Abraham, Noah, and Joseph has never been archaeologically confirmed, and some historians have described them as mythical characters stolen from Mesopotamian and Greek myths.
Greek oral tradition and its ancient statues are hundreds of years older than the Hebrew texts of the Jews.
Farooq Safi, in his book “The Aryan Roots of Judaism”, says that after the migration of a large wave of ancient Indo-European tribes and the Mitanni kingdom (Indo-European peoples living in Syria—possibly the ancestors of some of today’s Syrians), they helped develop Judaism. Some genetic findings partly confirm this.
“Ignaz Goldziher,” himself a Jewish Middle Eastern scholar, admitted that the elements and characters of the sacred texts (Torah and Talmud) were influenced by Greek gods and myths that the Israelites had taken and inserted into their own books:
• The story of “creating man from clay,” and the idea of “a paradise without suffering” and “a hell of fire,” first appeared in the Greek myth of Prometheus.
• The tale of “Adam and Eve” was taken from the Greek myth known as “Pandora’s Box.”
• The belief in the soul and the resurrection of the dead comes from the pagan Sumerians, the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, and the beliefs of the Egyptians, who believed that by mummifying the dead, the spirits would someday return to their bodies. The Jews copied all of this.
• The idea of immortality and eternal life did not exist in Hebrew oral tradition or texts before the Jews came into contact with the Achaemenid Iranian world, and was probably stolen from the Gathas, the Avestan/Zoroastrian texts of the Iranians, or from Sumerian beliefs.
(The word ameretatatem in the first verse of Yasna 34 Ahunavaiti meaning eternal life in heaven promised by the Iranian god is older than anyone imagines!)
• The story of a human in hell expressing regret and wishing to return to earth—while God does not permit it—is likely stolen from Iranian Avestan texts and did not appear in Judaism beforehand:
“When Gərəhəmā is in the other world, in hell, he desires greatly… O Ahura Mazda, your prophet wishes that you withhold this right from them…” (Yasna 32, Ahunavaiti, verse 13)
• The story of the “flood” in Genesis, later entering Christianity and Islam, is originally a tale from ancient Mesopotamian mythology, where the Sumerian god Enlil sends a great flood. Judaism adopted it and passed it on to Christianity and Islam.
• The figure of “Noah” is adapted from Atrahasis in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and from Ziusudra in Sumerian mythology. Ziusudra was a king in ancient Shuruppak who survived the flood. The Jews inserted him into their book as the fictional character “Noah.”
• The rebellion of Lucifer in the Bible is taken from the rebellion of Zeus (king of the Greek gods) and his siblings against their father Cronus. The word “Lucifer” existed before Judaism, and the Jews inserted it into the Old Testament.
• The story of “the descent of Eve” is the same as Persephone in Greek civilization, Inanna in Sumer, and Ishtar in Babylon and Assyria.
• The angel Gabriel is the same as the Greek Hermes, the god of speed and messenger of the gods.
• When humanity becomes excessively wicked, “Zeus the king of the Greek gods” sends a “great flood” to punish them; only “two people”—a man and a woman—survive by hiding in a wooden chest. This is astonishingly similar to the story of “Noah’s Ark.”
• The myth of Samson was taken from the Greek myth of Hercules.
• The birth of a child from a pure woman appears in Greek myths (Attis Ἄττης) and in Zoroastrian legends, the birth of Saoshyant from a virgin mother. It is now spoken of in Christianity and Islam as “Jesus, son of the virgin Mary.” (It was probably taken from the story of Horus of ancient Egypt.)
• The order of creation (heavens, earth, the breath of God, etc.) clearly follows the Babylonian myth Enuma Elish (Enûma Eliš), which predates Judaism. The pagan Babylonians believed this long before the Jews.
• Some Greek proverbs and the story of blind Bartimaeus were directly taken by Christians and inserted into the Gospel of Mark.
• Moses’ meeting with God on Mount Sinai is the same as the Greek festival of Mekone.
• The claimed Christian symbol of a crowned eagle is actually the symbol of Zeus, the Greek god.
• The story of Abraham and Isaac is the Greek myth of Athamas and Phrixus with elements of Heracles and Krosomassos.
• The story of the Annunciation is a reconstructed version of the Greek myth of Kinyras and Moura.
>>9004
And btw, since you are so eager to keep referring to other people's posts, and your mind seems quite locked onto those discussed topics, let me also refer you to a post on an old Iranian forum. I don't fully agree with everything in it, but it's an interesting post. And since I didn't feel like translating it myself, I used a translator:
Some researchers believe that the religion of Judaism was copied from the myths and legends of the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Aryans (Vedic–Brahmanic Sanskrit texts, Avestan texts, Mitanni, Minoan and Greek) and Assyrians, and then entered the Old Testament and New Testament.
Liberals suppress researchers with fabricated and misleading phrases such as “racism is bad” or “you are antisemitic”!
Islam has roots in Christianity and Judaism. But what are the roots of Judaism itself?! Is Judaism a divine religion?!
The existence of some Abrahamic religious figures such as Abraham, Noah, and Joseph has never been archaeologically confirmed, and some historians have described them as mythical characters stolen from Mesopotamian and Greek myths.
Greek oral tradition and its ancient statues are hundreds of years older than the Hebrew texts of the Jews.
Farooq Safi, in his book “The Aryan Roots of Judaism”, says that after the migration of a large wave of ancient Indo-European tribes and the Mitanni kingdom (Indo-European peoples living in Syria—possibly the ancestors of some of today’s Syrians), they helped develop Judaism. Some genetic findings partly confirm this.
“Ignaz Goldziher,” himself a Jewish Middle Eastern scholar, admitted that the elements and characters of the sacred texts (Torah and Talmud) were influenced by Greek gods and myths that the Israelites had taken and inserted into their own books:
• The story of “creating man from clay,” and the idea of “a paradise without suffering” and “a hell of fire,” first appeared in the Greek myth of Prometheus.
• The tale of “Adam and Eve” was taken from the Greek myth known as “Pandora’s Box.”
• The belief in the soul and the resurrection of the dead comes from the pagan Sumerians, the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, and the beliefs of the Egyptians, who believed that by mummifying the dead, the spirits would someday return to their bodies. The Jews copied all of this.
• The idea of immortality and eternal life did not exist in Hebrew oral tradition or texts before the Jews came into contact with the Achaemenid Iranian world, and was probably stolen from the Gathas, the Avestan/Zoroastrian texts of the Iranians, or from Sumerian beliefs.
(The word ameretatatem in the first verse of Yasna 34 Ahunavaiti meaning eternal life in heaven promised by the Iranian god is older than anyone imagines!)
• The story of a human in hell expressing regret and wishing to return to earth—while God does not permit it—is likely stolen from Iranian Avestan texts and did not appear in Judaism beforehand:
“When Gərəhəmā is in the other world, in hell, he desires greatly… O Ahura Mazda, your prophet wishes that you withhold this right from them…” (Yasna 32, Ahunavaiti, verse 13)
• The story of the “flood” in Genesis, later entering Christianity and Islam, is originally a tale from ancient Mesopotamian mythology, where the Sumerian god Enlil sends a great flood. Judaism adopted it and passed it on to Christianity and Islam.
• The figure of “Noah” is adapted from Atrahasis in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and from Ziusudra in Sumerian mythology. Ziusudra was a king in ancient Shuruppak who survived the flood. The Jews inserted him into their book as the fictional character “Noah.”
• The rebellion of Lucifer in the Bible is taken from the rebellion of Zeus (king of the Greek gods) and his siblings against their father Cronus. The word “Lucifer” existed before Judaism, and the Jews inserted it into the Old Testament.
• The story of “the descent of Eve” is the same as Persephone in Greek civilization, Inanna in Sumer, and Ishtar in Babylon and Assyria.
• The angel Gabriel is the same as the Greek Hermes, the god of speed and messenger of the gods.
• When humanity becomes excessively wicked, “Zeus the king of the Greek gods” sends a “great flood” to punish them; only “two people”—a man and a woman—survive by hiding in a wooden chest. This is astonishingly similar to the story of “Noah’s Ark.”
• The myth of Samson was taken from the Greek myth of Hercules.
• The birth of a child from a pure woman appears in Greek myths (Attis Ἄττης) and in Zoroastrian legends, the birth of Saoshyant from a virgin mother. It is now spoken of in Christianity and Islam as “Jesus, son of the virgin Mary.” (It was probably taken from the story of Horus of ancient Egypt.)
• The order of creation (heavens, earth, the breath of God, etc.) clearly follows the Babylonian myth Enuma Elish (Enûma Eliš), which predates Judaism. The pagan Babylonians believed this long before the Jews.
• Some Greek proverbs and the story of blind Bartimaeus were directly taken by Christians and inserted into the Gospel of Mark.
• Moses’ meeting with God on Mount Sinai is the same as the Greek festival of Mekone.
• The claimed Christian symbol of a crowned eagle is actually the symbol of Zeus, the Greek god.
• The story of Abraham and Isaac is the Greek myth of Athamas and Phrixus with elements of Heracles and Krosomassos.
• The story of the Annunciation is a reconstructed version of the Greek myth of Kinyras and Moura.
>>9013
• The belief in life after death first appeared in ancient Sumer and Egypt, not the Abrahamic religions. The Egyptians believed in Osiris, “god of the dead and eternal life.”
• Monotheism first appeared either in Iran (with Zoroaster) or in Egypt under Akhenaten—not in Judaism.
(Joseph of the Israelites has not been archaeologically confirmed; there is no inscription confirming the existence of a figure named Joseph, found only in Jewish scripture. Some believe Jewish messianism tries to claim Jews created Egyptian civilization!)
• The belief in the son of God is taken from Krishna (कृष्ण), the god of India.
• The belief in karma and the return of deeds belongs originally to Indo-Aryan beliefs.
• The belief in a single God and the rejection of polytheism first appears in the Avestan Gathas of the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrians.
• The dualism of good and evil in Judaism was likely borrowed from Zoroastrian and Hindu beliefs.
• Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were also influenced by the philosophy of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.
• The Garden of Eden in the Abrahamic (Semitic) religions is actually a Sumerian story from the land of Dilmun, which the Hebrew texts blatantly “plagiarized.”
• All religious elements such as the flood, Joseph, Abraham, Moses, Jonah and the whale, Moses (Moshe), Adam (Adām), Noah (Noa), or Gabriel (Gavriel) are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac words that entered Christianity and Islam.
• The crescent-and-star symbol ☪ comes from Sumerian inscriptions dating back to 1800 BCE.
• Christianity was never an independent religion. In April 70 CE (570 years before Islam), the Romans besieged Jerusalem. The teachings of Jesus, based on Judaism—he himself being Jewish—made Jerusalem sacred for Europeans, not their own land.
• There are thousands of scientific errors in the Torah; one of them is calling Iranians “Semites”—claiming that Elam was a son of Shem, so the descendants of Elam are cousins of Arabs and Jews. In reality, this is a kind of civilizational theft, implying that Semites created Iranian civilization and then left! Modern research shows Elamites were closer to Aryans, Western Europeans, and Indo-Aryan Hindus, with no relation to Shem, Ham, or the Jews.
You see, Judaism has nothing new; everything it claims existed earlier in the great ancient civilizations.
You may ask what relevance this has, but the Jews used these beliefs and teachings to dominate half the world’s economy and build the state of Israel!
Do not forget: the Third Reich (according to opponents of the Nazis) understood these things long before us, while we still do not know that the real culprits of World War I and II and the Crusades and the Black Death—which killed over 300 million people—were all struggles over reaching the Holy Land (Jerusalem).
Those who do not accept this are truly weak masses created to serve the people of Israel!
Yeah, that was all.
• The belief in life after death first appeared in ancient Sumer and Egypt, not the Abrahamic religions. The Egyptians believed in Osiris, “god of the dead and eternal life.”
• Monotheism first appeared either in Iran (with Zoroaster) or in Egypt under Akhenaten—not in Judaism.
(Joseph of the Israelites has not been archaeologically confirmed; there is no inscription confirming the existence of a figure named Joseph, found only in Jewish scripture. Some believe Jewish messianism tries to claim Jews created Egyptian civilization!)
• The belief in the son of God is taken from Krishna (कृष्ण), the god of India.
• The belief in karma and the return of deeds belongs originally to Indo-Aryan beliefs.
• The belief in a single God and the rejection of polytheism first appears in the Avestan Gathas of the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrians.
• The dualism of good and evil in Judaism was likely borrowed from Zoroastrian and Hindu beliefs.
• Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were also influenced by the philosophy of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.
• The Garden of Eden in the Abrahamic (Semitic) religions is actually a Sumerian story from the land of Dilmun, which the Hebrew texts blatantly “plagiarized.”
• All religious elements such as the flood, Joseph, Abraham, Moses, Jonah and the whale, Moses (Moshe), Adam (Adām), Noah (Noa), or Gabriel (Gavriel) are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac words that entered Christianity and Islam.
• The crescent-and-star symbol ☪ comes from Sumerian inscriptions dating back to 1800 BCE.
• Christianity was never an independent religion. In April 70 CE (570 years before Islam), the Romans besieged Jerusalem. The teachings of Jesus, based on Judaism—he himself being Jewish—made Jerusalem sacred for Europeans, not their own land.
• There are thousands of scientific errors in the Torah; one of them is calling Iranians “Semites”—claiming that Elam was a son of Shem, so the descendants of Elam are cousins of Arabs and Jews. In reality, this is a kind of civilizational theft, implying that Semites created Iranian civilization and then left! Modern research shows Elamites were closer to Aryans, Western Europeans, and Indo-Aryan Hindus, with no relation to Shem, Ham, or the Jews.
You see, Judaism has nothing new; everything it claims existed earlier in the great ancient civilizations.
You may ask what relevance this has, but the Jews used these beliefs and teachings to dominate half the world’s economy and build the state of Israel!
Do not forget: the Third Reich (according to opponents of the Nazis) understood these things long before us, while we still do not know that the real culprits of World War I and II and the Crusades and the Black Death—which killed over 300 million people—were all struggles over reaching the Holy Land (Jerusalem).
Those who do not accept this are truly weak masses created to serve the people of Israel!
Yeah, that was all.
Oops, I accidentally replied to 9004 instead of 9006
>>9008
>Abrahamic religions are more populous and more widespread than Hinduism.
Hinduism is the third largest religion after Christianity and Islam, and pajeets are everywhere.
>I said that part deliberately so that if someone felt I sounded a bit "algorithmic", they wouldn't immediately think they're some Sherlock Holmes who's figured out I used ai to organize my thoughts. Some people, instead of trying to respond to the actual argument, latch onto that point just to dodge the discussion. I tried not to leave them any excuse to nitpick.
Well, you failed in that effort then.
>Back then, why weren't you saying these things?
I did.
>I considered this as the definition of the Abrahamic God here:
>God actively intervenes in human history,
The extent to which people believe in divine intervention varies greatly. Deism is also widespread. Most Christians, Muslims and Jews by default generally think that God doesn't intervene in the physical world at all, except in the instances of documented miracles.
>You yourself, in response, said that this definition of God exists in every religion.
Because that is true. Most of not all religions have gods with descriptions that include at least three quarters of those points.
>I say natural numbers are real, and you say basically every conventional number, even irrational numbers, are valid. Okay, so are natural numbers real or not after all?
What a gay, tangential metaphor.
>I disagree with extending this definition to all religions
It's not even a real definition, because it's not definitive. It's just a list of traits that most religions have.
>Hellenists considered their gods to be fair and just
The gods were still the ultimate moral authority in Hellenism, arbiters of justice and givers of law. Zeus, despite being horny, was considered just by Hellenists because when he sits on his throne he embodies the meaning of what justice is by divine decree.
>You keep trying to justify with definitional differences.
Justify what?
>It doesn't matter how the cause and agent are interpreted (Yahweh, the Father, Allah, Baal, Vishnu, Mazda, Zeus, Odin, or others...)
Yes it does. That informs the basis of the entire religion.
>what matters is that the Abrahamic religions fundamentally agree on something like Noah's flood
""""Abrahamics"""" are not the only ones with a flood myth. Babylonians had a similar myth, as did Hellenists, Hindus, Indigenous Hawaiians, and Native Americans.
>and yet they also share common points
They share as many diverging syncretic points as they have in common.
>general aspects in the topic that are accepted by all
Those general aspects are not definitively exclusive.
>Your problem is that because you see some noticeable similarities between these religions, you assume their roots must be the same.
>No, they don't share a common Vedic origin
Their roots are literally the same. Hindus and Hellenists even have gods with the same>
Jupiter = Zeus Peter = Deus Pater = Dayus Patr (all meaning "Shining Father", the great patriarch in the Sky).
Many other Hellenic, Nordic and other Indo-European deities are mentioned in the Vedas.
And yet despite having the same root tradition (Vedas), and having gods with the same name and archetype, they are still drastically different religions. You should not ignore nuances and lump separate religions together.
>the concepts of the Vedic religions
Most European religions are Vedic religions.
Even Christianity can be considered a Vedic religion, because the Christian Trinity is reminiscent of Hellenist gods and demigods who represent their divine parents on earth.
>They are influenced by different ideas, not based on those roots. Notice the difference.
They are both.
>Because those details and complexities are the parts that are not shared and are differentiated!
Differences matter. They form the basis of their moral systems.
>Shared stories, like the story of Noah
Hinduism and Hellenism have flood stories too.
>>9009
>So again, you have misunderstood. Just because the Abrahamic religions differ in doctrine, location, and time due to various influential factors, it doesn't mean they don't share the same root.
I never said that they do not share roots. I said that the roots that they do not share are just as important as the ones that they do.
>No one claimed that this is a moral system, rather, it's a semantic concept that must exist in the mind so that a person understands their place.
Why?
>History has shown that humans have never reached anything superior
Speak for yourself. I think humans have made great progress in the 10k years. Humanity has made FiM.
>"meta-trans humanism"
Ugh, more cyborg tranny bullshit.
>so that humans realize that, essentially, there is nothing. In other words, one should understand enough to realize that you understand nothing.
Why?
>And if you think this is unethical, as I said, it is not necessarily meant to be moral from anyone's perspective, because moral variables are things that humans have created for their own survival. If some think this concept is immoral, it stems from our own moral pride, which is, after all, conventional. Morality exists for survival, nothing more.
That's just moral nihilism with extra steps. Could have just opened with that.
>The worst problem with atheism is exactly its pride and certainty in its views
Not necessarily. Atheism only means lack of belief. Most atheists can be considered agnostic if they have ever shown the slightest bit of superstition or humility I'm their lives.
>this perspective gives hope for life after death, and unlike the meaningless hope of religions, it does not put a person in blind faith or fabricated expectations
It does not necessarily do that.
>Abrahamic religions are more populous and more widespread than Hinduism.
Hinduism is the third largest religion after Christianity and Islam, and pajeets are everywhere.
>I said that part deliberately so that if someone felt I sounded a bit "algorithmic", they wouldn't immediately think they're some Sherlock Holmes who's figured out I used ai to organize my thoughts. Some people, instead of trying to respond to the actual argument, latch onto that point just to dodge the discussion. I tried not to leave them any excuse to nitpick.
Well, you failed in that effort then.
>Back then, why weren't you saying these things?
I did.
>I considered this as the definition of the Abrahamic God here:
>God actively intervenes in human history,
The extent to which people believe in divine intervention varies greatly. Deism is also widespread. Most Christians, Muslims and Jews by default generally think that God doesn't intervene in the physical world at all, except in the instances of documented miracles.
>You yourself, in response, said that this definition of God exists in every religion.
Because that is true. Most of not all religions have gods with descriptions that include at least three quarters of those points.
>I say natural numbers are real, and you say basically every conventional number, even irrational numbers, are valid. Okay, so are natural numbers real or not after all?
What a gay, tangential metaphor.
>I disagree with extending this definition to all religions
It's not even a real definition, because it's not definitive. It's just a list of traits that most religions have.
>Hellenists considered their gods to be fair and just
The gods were still the ultimate moral authority in Hellenism, arbiters of justice and givers of law. Zeus, despite being horny, was considered just by Hellenists because when he sits on his throne he embodies the meaning of what justice is by divine decree.
>You keep trying to justify with definitional differences.
Justify what?
>It doesn't matter how the cause and agent are interpreted (Yahweh, the Father, Allah, Baal, Vishnu, Mazda, Zeus, Odin, or others...)
Yes it does. That informs the basis of the entire religion.
>what matters is that the Abrahamic religions fundamentally agree on something like Noah's flood
""""Abrahamics"""" are not the only ones with a flood myth. Babylonians had a similar myth, as did Hellenists, Hindus, Indigenous Hawaiians, and Native Americans.
>and yet they also share common points
They share as many diverging syncretic points as they have in common.
>general aspects in the topic that are accepted by all
Those general aspects are not definitively exclusive.
>Your problem is that because you see some noticeable similarities between these religions, you assume their roots must be the same.
>No, they don't share a common Vedic origin
Their roots are literally the same. Hindus and Hellenists even have gods with the same>
Jupiter = Zeus Peter = Deus Pater = Dayus Patr (all meaning "Shining Father", the great patriarch in the Sky).
Many other Hellenic, Nordic and other Indo-European deities are mentioned in the Vedas.
And yet despite having the same root tradition (Vedas), and having gods with the same name and archetype, they are still drastically different religions. You should not ignore nuances and lump separate religions together.
>the concepts of the Vedic religions
Most European religions are Vedic religions.
Even Christianity can be considered a Vedic religion, because the Christian Trinity is reminiscent of Hellenist gods and demigods who represent their divine parents on earth.
>They are influenced by different ideas, not based on those roots. Notice the difference.
They are both.
>Because those details and complexities are the parts that are not shared and are differentiated!
Differences matter. They form the basis of their moral systems.
>Shared stories, like the story of Noah
Hinduism and Hellenism have flood stories too.
>>9009
>So again, you have misunderstood. Just because the Abrahamic religions differ in doctrine, location, and time due to various influential factors, it doesn't mean they don't share the same root.
I never said that they do not share roots. I said that the roots that they do not share are just as important as the ones that they do.
>No one claimed that this is a moral system, rather, it's a semantic concept that must exist in the mind so that a person understands their place.
Why?
>History has shown that humans have never reached anything superior
Speak for yourself. I think humans have made great progress in the 10k years. Humanity has made FiM.
>"meta-trans humanism"
Ugh, more cyborg tranny bullshit.
>so that humans realize that, essentially, there is nothing. In other words, one should understand enough to realize that you understand nothing.
Why?
>And if you think this is unethical, as I said, it is not necessarily meant to be moral from anyone's perspective, because moral variables are things that humans have created for their own survival. If some think this concept is immoral, it stems from our own moral pride, which is, after all, conventional. Morality exists for survival, nothing more.
That's just moral nihilism with extra steps. Could have just opened with that.
>The worst problem with atheism is exactly its pride and certainty in its views
Not necessarily. Atheism only means lack of belief. Most atheists can be considered agnostic if they have ever shown the slightest bit of superstition or humility I'm their lives.
>this perspective gives hope for life after death, and unlike the meaningless hope of religions, it does not put a person in blind faith or fabricated expectations
It does not necessarily do that.
>>9009
>Whether this applies to a certain religion is irrelevant to our discussion.
You made the discussion about "Abrahamism", and keep bringing up points that aren't definitive to those three religions.
> I am discussing the danger of a lion. Saying that a wolf is also dangerous has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Except if you only talk about lions when the world is full of wolves, you might be missing the bigger picture.
>You're always focusing on the side issues to distract from the main discussion.
Nigger, this is the discussion. Look around: nobody else cares enough to even bother to scrutinize your drivel.
>Confucianism is considered a religion in general, but separate from Abrahamic definitions.
It's more of a philosophy that includes adherence to cultural traditions derivative of Taoism.
>Buddhism is essentially atheistic and emphasizes individuality
They still acknowledge the divine system and wheel of reincarnation established in Hinduism. They just don't worship those gods.
>with all these damned populations, why were no other prophets sent to reform and preserve them so they wouldn't become what they are now?
Depending on who you ask, there were many prophets. Korean Mormons certainly think so.
>this literally has been the general definition of these religions
Citation needed.
>You're basically recounting the mental gymnastics of later philosophers and Romans
No, I am recounting cosmology preached by ancient Greek Hellenist clergy of Zeus. I learned this in classical literature class.
>Baal, Yahweh, and other semitic gods would also be portrayed as just, based on Achaemenid interpretations aimed at gaining legitimacy from their believers.
That's what religions do.
>At least read Homer's stories to understand what Zeus was really like.
I did read them. I read them for fun as a kid all of the time. Zeus killed mortals for sport, but in the Greek moral system he is still the divine arbiter of the concept of justice.
>raping half the world while justifying oneself as superior shows no trace of justice
According to Hellenism, it is. Note that raping women you captured in war was mostly considered to be normal back then.
I never said it was a good concept of justice. I just say how it worked.
In the end, Romans weren't satisfied with it, do they turned to.Christianity.
> It was influenced, yes, but largely not in its roots.
Ok.
>Its main root ultimately comes from judaism, and if there is any similarity to Hellenism, it probably means that judaism was influenced by Hellenism, not necessarily christianity.
It's more like the version of Judaism that was contemporaneous with Hellenism no longer exists, and modern Judaism (rejection of the Messiah) and Christianity (acceptance of the messiah) were both influenced by the Christian movement.
>If it hasn't reached the level of the jews, then divine attention hasn't been sufficient, and justice is therefore flawed.
Nigger, Jews are no different from every one of the countless ethnic nigger religions that have existed throughout history. The only reason Judiaism is relevant is because the Jews themselves have enough money and power to force acceptance of their kind.
>the Abrahamic moral framework
Christians, Muslims and Jews have three completely separate moral frameworks. Their philosophy of why moral behavior is important and who it is important to be moral to and completely different.
>god didn't send anyone to correct them
Various religions have various reasons for why their gods don't personally correct people. The deist perspective is that God simply prefers to directly interfere as little as possible.
>>9011
>Knowledge is knowing the real Zeus.
You know that "the real Zeus" was different depending on which Greek island you sailed to on any given day, right? There were many different interpretations of Hellenism, some of which were quite different from what is commonly known.
For example, archeologists recently found a site on an island where a twelve year old boy was sacrificed to Zeus. All of the meat on his bones was stripped off, cooked, and eaten, and the priests who ate his meat were supposed to transform into wolves for a year. This wasn't a common practice across all of the Greek islands, but on that island that was what "the real Zeus" demanded.
> taking all the Abrahamic religions and placing them within a closed framework connected only to Roman paganism, Zoroastrianism, and Canaanite religions
There's more things that they're related to, but that is what I bothered to mention at the time.
>As I said, the Abrahamic religions acted against this practice as much as possible across different societies.
Jews eat kids.
>You are essentially trying, through meaningless generalizations and forced analogies, to establish a superficial connection between them just to say: 'they have this too!' while the intent, meaning, and underlying logic behind them are fundamentally different.
I've been doing the exact opposite of that through this whole conversation.
>It's like saying that because ping-pong and football both use a ball, there must therefore be a special connection between them. Yes, there is one, their connection is that they are both sports!
They were also both popularized as vehicles of propaganda by the United States military. They have more in common than you think.
>Moreover, a prophet refers to someone who follows a unified line of thought and spreads and promotes a single message.
That is not the only definition of prophet.
>Most of these figures each created their own method and path and wove their own understanding of the world. That is precisely why there are thousands of different sects, religions, and belief systems in places like india.
Same can be said for Protestant Christianity in America.
>He functions more as a godlike symbol and a savior
Kind of like Jesus.
You know, there's a very fringe sect if Buddhists who say that Jesus was Buddha trolling on a victory lap.
>Whether this applies to a certain religion is irrelevant to our discussion.
You made the discussion about "Abrahamism", and keep bringing up points that aren't definitive to those three religions.
> I am discussing the danger of a lion. Saying that a wolf is also dangerous has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Except if you only talk about lions when the world is full of wolves, you might be missing the bigger picture.
>You're always focusing on the side issues to distract from the main discussion.
Nigger, this is the discussion. Look around: nobody else cares enough to even bother to scrutinize your drivel.
>Confucianism is considered a religion in general, but separate from Abrahamic definitions.
It's more of a philosophy that includes adherence to cultural traditions derivative of Taoism.
>Buddhism is essentially atheistic and emphasizes individuality
They still acknowledge the divine system and wheel of reincarnation established in Hinduism. They just don't worship those gods.
>with all these damned populations, why were no other prophets sent to reform and preserve them so they wouldn't become what they are now?
Depending on who you ask, there were many prophets. Korean Mormons certainly think so.
>this literally has been the general definition of these religions
Citation needed.
>You're basically recounting the mental gymnastics of later philosophers and Romans
No, I am recounting cosmology preached by ancient Greek Hellenist clergy of Zeus. I learned this in classical literature class.
>Baal, Yahweh, and other semitic gods would also be portrayed as just, based on Achaemenid interpretations aimed at gaining legitimacy from their believers.
That's what religions do.
>At least read Homer's stories to understand what Zeus was really like.
I did read them. I read them for fun as a kid all of the time. Zeus killed mortals for sport, but in the Greek moral system he is still the divine arbiter of the concept of justice.
>raping half the world while justifying oneself as superior shows no trace of justice
According to Hellenism, it is. Note that raping women you captured in war was mostly considered to be normal back then.
I never said it was a good concept of justice. I just say how it worked.
In the end, Romans weren't satisfied with it, do they turned to.Christianity.
> It was influenced, yes, but largely not in its roots.
Ok.
>Its main root ultimately comes from judaism, and if there is any similarity to Hellenism, it probably means that judaism was influenced by Hellenism, not necessarily christianity.
It's more like the version of Judaism that was contemporaneous with Hellenism no longer exists, and modern Judaism (rejection of the Messiah) and Christianity (acceptance of the messiah) were both influenced by the Christian movement.
>If it hasn't reached the level of the jews, then divine attention hasn't been sufficient, and justice is therefore flawed.
Nigger, Jews are no different from every one of the countless ethnic nigger religions that have existed throughout history. The only reason Judiaism is relevant is because the Jews themselves have enough money and power to force acceptance of their kind.
>the Abrahamic moral framework
Christians, Muslims and Jews have three completely separate moral frameworks. Their philosophy of why moral behavior is important and who it is important to be moral to and completely different.
>god didn't send anyone to correct them
Various religions have various reasons for why their gods don't personally correct people. The deist perspective is that God simply prefers to directly interfere as little as possible.
>>9011
>Knowledge is knowing the real Zeus.
You know that "the real Zeus" was different depending on which Greek island you sailed to on any given day, right? There were many different interpretations of Hellenism, some of which were quite different from what is commonly known.
For example, archeologists recently found a site on an island where a twelve year old boy was sacrificed to Zeus. All of the meat on his bones was stripped off, cooked, and eaten, and the priests who ate his meat were supposed to transform into wolves for a year. This wasn't a common practice across all of the Greek islands, but on that island that was what "the real Zeus" demanded.
> taking all the Abrahamic religions and placing them within a closed framework connected only to Roman paganism, Zoroastrianism, and Canaanite religions
There's more things that they're related to, but that is what I bothered to mention at the time.
>As I said, the Abrahamic religions acted against this practice as much as possible across different societies.
Jews eat kids.
>You are essentially trying, through meaningless generalizations and forced analogies, to establish a superficial connection between them just to say: 'they have this too!' while the intent, meaning, and underlying logic behind them are fundamentally different.
I've been doing the exact opposite of that through this whole conversation.
>It's like saying that because ping-pong and football both use a ball, there must therefore be a special connection between them. Yes, there is one, their connection is that they are both sports!
They were also both popularized as vehicles of propaganda by the United States military. They have more in common than you think.
>Moreover, a prophet refers to someone who follows a unified line of thought and spreads and promotes a single message.
That is not the only definition of prophet.
>Most of these figures each created their own method and path and wove their own understanding of the world. That is precisely why there are thousands of different sects, religions, and belief systems in places like india.
Same can be said for Protestant Christianity in America.
>He functions more as a godlike symbol and a savior
Kind of like Jesus.
You know, there's a very fringe sect if Buddhists who say that Jesus was Buddha trolling on a victory lap.
>You are essentially trying to suggest that these religions have no particular connection to one another.
I did not say that.
>You are taking my general critique of all Abrahamic religions and attributing it to one group from a single branch
There are dozens of branches that think that. Mormonism was just the first one I thought of.
>then expecting me to accept their claims on this matter
Lmao, no.
I was just giving examples of how the views of certain "Abrahamic" religions contradict your "checkmate".
>even though there is no evidence for it beyond their own words and it remains nothing more than a claim.
Can be said for 99% of the religious mythology of pretty much every religion on earth.
>it still does not justify the outcomes and the reality of what actually happened
Iirc, the justification is that the locals murdered the prophets, so they missed out. Their descendants could still be converted. For Christians and Muslims, converting heathens/infidels to save them is their highest moral obligation.
Idk, ask a Mormon.
>why divine attention was ultimately not granted to them to the same extent
If anything, "divine attention" did little for Jews because they are do narcissistic and self centered that they're total degenerates. Most "Abrahamic" religions say that all Jews go to hell.
Perhaps other tribes were spared from ending up like Jews.
>because Abrahamic religions are different from each other, they cannot share a common root.
I did not say that.
I did not say that.
>You are taking my general critique of all Abrahamic religions and attributing it to one group from a single branch
There are dozens of branches that think that. Mormonism was just the first one I thought of.
>then expecting me to accept their claims on this matter
Lmao, no.
I was just giving examples of how the views of certain "Abrahamic" religions contradict your "checkmate".
>even though there is no evidence for it beyond their own words and it remains nothing more than a claim.
Can be said for 99% of the religious mythology of pretty much every religion on earth.
>it still does not justify the outcomes and the reality of what actually happened
Iirc, the justification is that the locals murdered the prophets, so they missed out. Their descendants could still be converted. For Christians and Muslims, converting heathens/infidels to save them is their highest moral obligation.
Idk, ask a Mormon.
>why divine attention was ultimately not granted to them to the same extent
If anything, "divine attention" did little for Jews because they are do narcissistic and self centered that they're total degenerates. Most "Abrahamic" religions say that all Jews go to hell.
Perhaps other tribes were spared from ending up like Jews.
>because Abrahamic religions are different from each other, they cannot share a common root.
I did not say that.