People really don't appreciate religious history. But I love it. Religion has been so wrapped up in the historical development of every culture and what it means to be human for the majority of the world's population. All religions are interesting to me and worth studying or at least knowing about
@@A1.4U Depends on what u mean. Protestant/Charismatic Christianity is growing fact but most of this includes converting already Christian people but still sees new growth in India and China.
I truly appreciate your channel. Studying religion is Very important to humans. I...personaly have become an atheist. But...I have not stopped studying religion. Thank you for your insight.
Since high school (back when I was a christian) I started saying "no two people have the same religion" and I still hold to that. There are always going to be differences between how two people relate to their own religious beliefs and/or practices. Obviously there will be similarities and such that can be grouped together in certain contexts but its just not possible to assume what any person believes based on the name of their religion.
@THOUGHT TANK - “exactly the same way” - yeah, no. I think that’s the most idealistic you can get: “we all agree on everything, and think exactly the same way!” - definitely not grounded in realism at all. :P
I'll add a few I'm stealing from _Religion Explained_ by Pascal Boyer that you might want to think about: *It's not all about god(s).* In many religions the focus is on ancestors, witches, good and evil spirits, but the gods or a god plays a very minor role.The gods, for a lot of people who believe in the supernatural, just made the world and went away. *Salvation is not always a central preoccupation.* In many parts of the world, religion does not really promise that the ‘soul’ will be saved or liberated and in fact does not have much to say about its destiny. Dead people become ghosts or ancestors but this is general and does not involve a special moral judgement. *You can have religion without having ‘a’ religion.* Many people, throughout history and today, live in a world where their religious activity is the only one that is conceivable. In other words, while Tom Smith from Tacoma, Washington might be aware that he's a Methodist and doesn't believe in many of the doctrines that Catholics (or Jews and Muslims) believe in, many people are not aware of other forms of worship so they don't classify themselves as being adherents to a religion. Their way is the only way, as far as they know. *You can have religion without ‘faith’.* Faith is key to many religions we are familiar with in the West - what you believe is central to Islam and Christianity - but there are plenty of belief systems that are not like this at all. Many people in the world would say that witches and ghosts are just part of the world around them like trees and animals-though they are far more difficult to understand and control-so it does not require a particular commitment or faith to notice their existence and act accordingly.
It seems strange to me to elevate so many negative and abstract propositions about religion to the level of "necessary for religious literacy". Notice that all four of these propositions (as well as the first two in the video) are equally true of capitalism, cats, carpets, and car-racing. On the other hand, if you have a little in-depth positive knowledge of the specifics of just one religion outside Christianity, then the negative propositions will be so obvious as to not seem worth stating.
@@christinabutterfield1801 The case in point is _orthodoxy_ or the understanding that there is a "correct" form of belief. Many religious systems do not emphasize or even acknowledge this need for correct belief. In other words, you might "believe" in witches and ghosts, but this belief is more or less taken for granted in the context of religious practice. That is, the question of whether they exist or not is never really asked in the first place.
@@christinabutterfield1801 They are often believed in in the same way you believe in Giraffes. The belief itself is not elevated to a virtue, they are just honestly mistaken.
Reference books are good for details and also for larger context ..... Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion, 2016, 862 pages. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 2005, 550 pages. Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, 2009, 609 pages. Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, 2013, 632 pages. Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, 2007, 708 pages. Oxford Handbook of Mystical Theology, 2020, 704 pages. Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology, 2017, 627 pages. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 4th ed., 2022, 2 vols., 2143 pages.
Top 3 more things that everyone should know about religion. 1. Not all wars are done in the name of religion, because there are plenty of irreligious wars that do exist. Religion=/=war. 2. Not all religions do proselytization, because it's only reserved for a specific group of people. 3. Not all religions have an impact on society.
Thanks for the video! Now where is the Cole’s notes for each of the major religions in pre-Christian and Abraham times? That would be a handy resource!
When you got to the topic of the calendar, I was hopeful you'd say more than you ended up saying. The calendar that we use (in the West), is based on Jesus, per the Council of Nicaea. But that Julian Calendar had flaws, so Pope Gregory came along in the 16th century and introduced changes to that calendar, hence the Gregorian Calendar we use today. When I traveled to Israel decades ago, I was dumbstruck to see that on their official coins and currency, they use their own date of creation, a much older date than the one we use in the West.
Now, that is something one does not hear very often, but is COMPLETELY true: Religion is PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL! If only people would understand this better (or at all), the world would be a better place, indeed. BELIEFS, for that is what religions are, at least partly, would be stronger. More relying on personal discovery, and invention. No two peolpe are the same, and neither should religion be per se. Religion can enhance personal growth. No one should be subjected to a (religious) belief. This will only lead to misery, and destruction. As it has, far too often.
@@cycleplumber THere's a link in the top right of this vid. It's now unlisted, but you can still watch it. I'm curious why he unlisted it, but if you're having trouble finding the link: ruclips.net/video/m0HL_RaQgEE/видео.html
Hello religionforbreakfast You mention an earlier video where you analyze the debate between Ben Affleck, Sam Harris and Bill Maher, but I can't find that video any way I search? Was it taken down? I remember when everybody talked about the Maher-Affleck debate, and everybody had very strong opinions aboit it. Frankly I've never had the energy to watch the debate itself, (I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher) but maybe with a calm and educated companion like yourself, it would be bearable. Anyway, thanks for a a great channel. Greeting from Denmark.
1. this is a very important thing people forget. This is why the 'no true scotsman fallacy' always applies in religion. I always get tired of the radial left saying 'ISIS are not true muslims' with ISIS calling moderate west-loving muslims 'not true muslims'. NO! Any person who calls Allah the one god and Muhammed his prophet is a muslim, no matter who they love, who they don't, where they're from, and to whom they're afiliated. 2. I'm personally an atheist with a fascination for the flow of history (not specific events, but how everything slowly morphed to be) and it boggles my mind that even many Christians don't realise how much has changed even within Catholicism. They think that Lutherism is still the same as in the 1600th century and the list goes on. Why then, oh dear christian, are you wearing mixed cloth? You only need to read a few paragraphs of the new testament to realise how much has changed. This is why I hate it when religious people cling to the book. Don't do that, appeal instead to what the religion currently is. Another point with this is once again Islam. The early caliphates were relative paradise to the current middle east and especially ISIS, which are by far and a way the most regressive Islamists have been since the beginning. During the days of conquest they would keep believes in other abrahamic religions alive, granted they pay a tax. They (usually) couldn't get high positions, but they were accounted for. This was far more lenient than Christianty was back then. Look how the tides have changed. 3. This is why I love going to countries with a non-abrahamic majority. It feels like I'm really away from what I know with all these new places to explore. Despite being an atheist, I know how deeply rooted christianity is in my culture, and I don't mind it. I think religion has beautiful things to it, that's why I'm subscribed to your channel, and you can appreciate it even more going to places that don't have the same influences that you take for granted.
I might be considered "radical left" as a socialist, but I agree with your criticism of many on the left calling ISIS "not true Muslims". It's Irritating, I know.
Since this is an old comment, this is for anyone else who reads this. The Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because there is one definition for a Scotsman: a man from Scotland. There is not one criterion for defining Islam. There are nuances that separate it from Baha'i, Christianity, and whatever cults like ISIS that have sprung from its tradition.
Deldarel well, all atheist are the same in my opinion... They are all humans, with functioning brain and heart, they like to breath, eat and drink, and they dont believe in any god...
deldarel now we know that the us have been in an alliance with isis/alqaeda in syria(that we know of, could be the case elsewhere, as well). many muslims do think isis are traitors and not real muslims. dont they have a point?
I was shocked to see the ad that ran before this video: "One for Israel" - supporting evangelism of Jesus to Jews! I don't think an ad like that is fitting for a channel like yours. Is there anything you can do about the ads that run on your channel?
Ironically, religious literacy does not include knowing what religion is. Because nobody seems to want to try and define it. And when people de try, everybody else is ready to point out a million mistakes and counter examples.
Humans are born to be good and exist together. We don’t need a religion to tell us what to do. Humanism and science are the only things we need. Not fairy tales.
How about this: 1) Humans are different 2) Humans change over time 3) Humans are really interesting and multi-faceted, and they engage with their surroundings as such In theory, "Religious Literacy" seems like a good idea, but are the "three key assumptions" actually more helpful or accurate than my three? Think how much more helpful my #1 is (Humans are different) than "Religions are internally diverse". True it may seem more common sense and less profound, but just how "internally diverse" can religions be? The answer is "atomistically diverse": as diverse as every individual in a population. If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to just say it that way? Again, how is "Religions evolve and change over time" (#2) a better alternative to "humans and therefore human cultures change over time"? And yet, humans are still human. Why emphasize the change rather than the continuity? The third point is perhaps (in my view) the most problematic. If a person self-identifies as being "not religious", how are they materially different from "religious" humans? Don't they have influences that shape them in every sphere too? Don't their "non-religious" ideas inform their voting, purchases, etc.? Are they religious despite their protestation to the contrary? It's much healthier to set aside "religion" as a distinction and instead talk about humans and their worldviews...which are as varied as the panoply of humanity. In the long run, doesn't it make more sense for one person to receive another as an individual as a unique "instance" of humanity, listen to what they think and believe, and respond accordingly? Isn't it a better (and easier) rule of thumb to take each person as they come and ask them for clarification, not assuming anything about them which they haven't disclosed?
I think the key misunderstanding here is that these are key assumptions specifically for the study of religion, not key assumptions for the living of your everyday life. Yes, it's important to remember that all humans are distinct, dynamic, and internally diverse. Yes, it's important not to carry preconceived notions of what someone means when they call themselves a member of a religious movement. These are critical things to keep in mind when interacting with people as a person. But in terms of anthropology and history, we also have to acknowledge that there are general trends and forces that those distinct people are a part of--and religion is a huge player in that. From a research perspective, we have to also consider the broader movement that individuals are a part of--a movement that contains infinite shades of color, but can also be written about and investigated on a broader scale.
I have recently subscribed to your channel and been pouring through all your videos. At the start of this video you mention an early video about the Bill Maher and Ben Affleck debate and examining it. Did you delete this because I cannot seem to find it? Thank you for the awesome videos so far!
@@ReligionForBreakfast A reminder: please do! The Affleck vs Harris exchange won't disappear from the web any time soon. And it isn't neat/orderly to have something like a reference here dangling incomplete. Analysis from someone of your background and experience would most definitely be useful regardless where someone personally falls in the debate.
I just wanted to point this out. I was reading the Harvard site that is linked and some of the stuff about Modern History of Hinduism is factually incorrect and other times is only half the picture.
"The day is coming when all the religions of the world will unite, for in principle they are one already. There is no need for division, seeing that it is only the outward forms that separate them. Among the sons of men some souls are suffering through ignorance, let us hasten to teach them; others are like children needing care and education until they are grown, and some are sick-to these we must carry Divine healing." --Abdu'l Baha
A lot of good points here and I think that the purpose to push the diversity argument is to fight against the simplistic and popular generalizations about religions. It is important to stress the differences between religions and within religions and at the same time, to note that there are differences which are important (very significant or essential generally because of their social consequences) and others which are not. For instance, there is violence in the Bible and the Qur'an but it is not the same violence! One is much more problematic than the other!
P Belgazo Violence in itself as being viewed always bad, comes from a hedonistic philosophical understanding of what the source of happiness is. Islam and Christianity do not uphold a hedonistic worldview, so there is according to these revelations a justifiable violence. That is, the one which God allows in those scriptures. Even in modern states legislation there is a legal right to use violence. The only difference is that it is sanctioned by men while the other is sanctioned by God.
Has the Ben Affleck on Bill Maher commentary being referenced been pulled? I can't seem to find it and don't have the proper context for some of what he's talking about.
Yes. It was cringy. Someone linked it in another comment here asking the same question. But be sure to watch the whole Maher clip to see why he was both wrong and hypocritical & it was the right thing to do to unlist it. Everybody makes mistakes :)
@@pearspeedruns That's a major difference between the sciences and humanities. When a scientist changes his mind, he may publish a retraction and ask the publisher to delete it from the online archive. The most scholars in the humanities used to do was publish their change of mind and perhaps leave the paper out of their "collected works" when they were about to retire.
What's even the point of having collective terms for religious groups if we take these assumptions as true then? Obviously some degree of this acknowledgement of differences across time and space and between people, but if, let's say, "Muslim" is to be assumed to mean different things in Qatar and Indonesia and different things in 1979 and 2009 and different things between practitioner A and practitioner b, then what is the function of the word "Muslim" anymore? If the group means different things to different members of a given group it kinda feels like there ceases to be a group.
This is an excellent question. I'd say our use of categories depend on if there is a continuity of beliefs and practices across time and across various groups in the present (for example, belief in Jesus and practicing the Eucharist is almost universal among Christians both now and then). The categories "Islam" and "Christianity" are useful because they distinguish between two discrete families of beliefs and practices. So we need to ask ourselves: "Where is there CHANGE and where is there CONTINUITY across time for a religion?" We can use Islam as a category through time because there has been a continuity of practice in terms of belief in the Quran, the five pillars, etc. The change in belief and practice has not transformed the religion enough to warrant a new category. But consider Christianity. There reached a point in the 3rd or 4th century CE where belief and practice changed so dramatically from Judaism, that we needed a new category: "Christianity." The transformation can be so significant, that our categories do indeed destabilize. Naturally this means our categories are imperfect, but recognizing plurality in belief and practice does not mean we need to discard these categories entirely. They are still very useful.
Our Prophet in Islam told us that "the Jews are divided into 71 sects, the Christians into 72 sects, and my community will divide into 73 sects. All of them will be in the Fire except for one, and that is the Jamā’ah.” It was said, “And who are they, O Allah’s Messenger?” He responded, “That which (stay to the teaching of) me and my Companions are upon today.” (Ibn Majah, Abu Daud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nisa’i). The hadith also occurs in many other versions as well. But many Islamic Scholars concluded that most of the sect wont survive until the end of time. That is why we found only few sect today.
While there is obviously diversity of belief at every level, that doesn't mean that we can't make generalizations about groups. The existence of outliers doesn't negate the uniformity of a group. Every generalization about a group should be taken with a grain of salt, but that isn't to say that there isn't reliable truth in the likelihood of behavior in line with these generalizations. As long as we recognize that "Christians vote Republican" is a generalization, and as such we should not expect that behavior of every single member, the statement still conveys useful information in what behavior to generally expect from that group.
I agree to a certain extent. As long as we are gaining more from the generalization than losing. So, "Christians believe in the Trinity" is a safe generalization." But your example "Christians vote Republican" I think is too broad of a generalization, and we would lose the fact that Mainline Protestants and 50% of Catholics tend to vote Democrat. I'd add some qualifiers like: "American Evangelical Christians tend to vote Republican."
Generalizations hold varying degrees of truth. I admit that your example "American Evangelical Christians tend to vote Republican" would be a more accurate generalization (if you remove the word "tend" as that makes it into a statement of tendencies rather than generalizing). However, given the implicit assumptions along with "Christians vote Republican" (American, and therefore by further generalizing, Protestant) it still remains useful, but to a limited sense. What I am saying is that "Christians vote Republican" is obviously untrue as an assertion and so presents itself as a generalization, and this generalization conveys the variable likelihood of Christians voting Republican, the variable of which to be discussed further. Knowing that a large amount of Christians vote Republican, even if a minority, my example gives light to the statistically significant Republican voting Christians, and so retains some value. Your example would narrow the variable from the beginning making it a more valuable single statement or start to a discussion. For clarity, "Christians vote Republican" as a bold generalization should not be used as a single statement. P.S. Thank you for your reply.
@@ReligionForBreakfast I would disagree about your generalization about the Trinity, true, the strain if Christianity that stems from Catholicism follow that generalization but that really only covers"Western" Christianity and the generalization does s huge disservice
@@the13nthpartyboy not all the Americans in Brazil, Mexico, Canada etc - why do people call US America? It’s just one country within the two continents of America
@@topologyrob 1. This is a 4 year old post... 2. What does the U.S. being called America have to do with the discussion of generalizations? 3. The United States of America is commonly called just America because it is the only country with "America" in it's official name, and does not refer to any other place when used on its own. There is North America, South America, Central America, Latin America, The Americas (North and South), and finally just America (in reference to the U.S.A.). The reasons people from the U.S. are called Americans is because there is nothing else to call us, no other country's people are referred to by that name, and there is no need to refer to all peoples of North and South America together as one in short form. Having the name "America" or "American" isn't a prize, it is simply a name. Something to be used for easy identification.
Islam the youngest abrahamic of the three religions, and no it's nothing more than a hodgepodge combination of both Christian and Jewish... All it is is trading one groupthink for another group of group thinkers😊 Why bother being part of any group?
4- Religions aren't always theistic 5-Some religions are worse than others 6-Judging a person's character based on their religion is dumb 7-People can't choose to be atheist or theist (for the most part)
Diversity of religion is beside the point. It simply reflects individuality of people. It's the ideas in a religion that people share in common that concerns me because it's often when religion becomes dangerous.
Saying that before religion encouraged slavery and today not, implies that there is no modern slavery. But there is! Slavery evolves aswell. The slavery in Ancient Israel and Egypt is very different from the slavery in the Greco-Roman classical world and the Greco-Roman classical slavery is very different from the modern slavery. It's just that in all periods of time humans believe that their zeitgeist is the best and the most evolved there is and has nothing to do with the previous order. In French it is said: "Let's change everything so that everything can stay the same" Changeons nous tout, pour que ca reste la meme chose
Where is that Bill Maher video analysis? Because no matter what a person's religious, scientific, and/or political beliefs were between 2020-2021; their "God" gave them time to take on religious literacy studies. Some say they had too much time. Some, scientifically speaking say time is really only relative. Some could, religiously speaking, say "God (or whatever you conceive God to be)" jokes in mysterious ways.
The most important thing to understand is that we all pray to the same God. By understanding this we are more likely to try and have some respect when we talk with people of another belief system. Even if you are atheist you are still usually motivated by the general benefit of mankind. That is where respect comes in.
When you choose to believe something, you pick one out of two to you equally likely possibilities. You believe in both the same amount, but you simply hope that one is true. Belief comes before choice because if you don't believe something, it's not even a consideration. If you're chosing what you believe, you're actually hoping what you follow is true. Someone who trully believes doesn't need hope because they know for themselves they're right no matter what religion they believe in.
@Dwarf From The North than you don't really understand the idea. No one can not believe in anything in regards to the nature of the universe. You either believe everything is organized, in harmony and intelligent or you believe in randomness. It's not stupid to use the world God to describe the universal law and it isn't stupid to believe in it. Believing in randomness is also a belief and it's equally unprovable as the universal law.
point 1 is a huge argument against religion, if everyone has their own god, why have an organized religion? I am not sure a christian who does not believe in god is a christian? Why be christian if you believe otherwise? This is religion being slippery and trying to appeal to more by saying, yes you can be christian but believe whatever you want. Furthermore this is way too obvious. Every person who reads a work of fiction gets different things from that fiction. The problem is when they start believing what that fiction is fact
@borukamante absolutely false, there is no reference to Jesus being God or the trinuty in the cannon except in John which is the most recent in to h e Canon. Pretty arrogant and historically inaccurate to even suggest such a thing
Why do people celebrate the tradition of Santa Claus bringing gifts when everyone knows Santa doesn't really exist, and everyone knows people outside the West are likely not to believe in Santa Claus? It's because people enjoy the traditions and values it represents and the social solidarity it brings.
So, what you are saying is that since there is too much to know about religion, it's okay to be lazy and assume that you don't need to know anything. 1. You are not likely to be able to understand even your own religion, much less anyone else's. 2. What you think you do understand is only valid within its historical context, and will get reinterpreted. 3. You probably don't even know when you're being influenced by your religion, so don't expect to know what is influencing someone else. Maybe you won't credit my university degree in comparative religion, but I'm calling "BS" on this one. Harvard is just teaching moral relativism and using a facade of religious tolerance to do it.
@@j.k.6865 hmmm he did follow the sharia he came to preach to the Jews to follow the laws and he never drank alcohol or ate pork what u on about read ur bibbible buddy
You are not alive ! You only exist. In order to gain true Life you need to connect with Life in Person , Jesus Christ. Come, walk the path that was predestined for you, Son and Daughter of the Most High ! The Lord of Hosts awaits you ! Come !..
While I applaud your attempts to be unbiased, there is already a distinct bias in the coverage I have seen here: namely, you discuss "recognized" religions, like the Abrahamic religions, but you have yet to mention polytheistic religions other than Hindus. While many people assume that the spiritual beliefs of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa, and Australia are as absent as the people seem to be (especially in the U.S.; shout out to all First Nations people!), you err on the side of orthodoxy to assume that polytheistic religious beliefs are gone from the places that have been occupied by Colonialists for centuries. You point out that some religions are evident in many places by pointing out specific buildings, but you miss the subtler indications that older, more natural religions still exist--even in those places crowded over and fought over by the Abrahamic religions. What is happening to the Amazon forest isn't just happening to the trees--the government is trying to drive out all the indigenous people, too. Wake up! Western religions are the noisiest religions, but they are not the only ones.
Historically in the west, its a dichotomy betwren the church and the faith, with protestants believing in faith over church and roman catholics believing in church over faith, but both aspects are christianity.
@@thisiswheezie it's funny, that's what Protestants profess but the practice defies that premise. Supposedly one is supposed to read the Bible and draw ones own conclusions but if one draws a different conclusion than the one predetermined by the church they are condemned
1. Cars are very diverse, but when you get under the tires, your fate is the same. 2. Christianity and Islam are still in favour of slavery. It's just that many people, who call themselves Christians or Muslims, do not agree with this part of the religion anymore. 3. That's finally a good point. Many people overlook that religions come with a load of believes about the world, which influence every aspect of our lives.
@@donthappybeworry5348 "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -Matthew 5:18-19 Jesus doesn't seem to agree that the "old covenant laws don't apply to Christians". Where exactly does the New Testament "denounce" slavery? Because it actually supports it: "“Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”" -Ephesians 6:5-8 "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." -1 Peter 2:18 It seems like Jesus, Peter and Paul all disagree with you.
@Somali Kid Wrong. Was the bible re-written or the quran? No. People still defend the slavers in those texts to this day. And they hold the reputation of the texts to be more important than the well being of their fellow men. Even if they were completely convinced of the false narrative, the truth would still be there for anyone in the future to find. That's pretty much what happened with flat earthers. Theologians hadn't believed in a flat earth for a very long time, but it's still part of the texts.
People really don't appreciate religious history. But I love it. Religion has been so wrapped up in the historical development of every culture and what it means to be human for the majority of the world's population. All religions are interesting to me and worth studying or at least knowing about
Humble opinion Islam is the only fastest growing religion right now n the most rational n logical faith
@@A1.4U Depends on what u mean. Protestant/Charismatic Christianity is growing fact but most of this includes converting already Christian people but still sees new growth in India and China.
I truly appreciate your channel. Studying religion is Very important to humans. I...personaly have become an atheist. But...I have not stopped studying religion. Thank you for your insight.
Since high school (back when I was a christian) I started saying "no two people have the same religion" and I still hold to that. There are always going to be differences between how two people relate to their own religious beliefs and/or practices. Obviously there will be similarities and such that can be grouped together in certain contexts but its just not possible to assume what any person believes based on the name of their religion.
Well thats how it should be, thats idealistic tho, in reality lots of people have/veiw/do regilion exactly the same way.
@THOUGHT TANK - “exactly the same way” - yeah, no. I think that’s the most idealistic you can get: “we all agree on everything, and think exactly the same way!” - definitely not grounded in realism at all. :P
I'll add a few I'm stealing from _Religion Explained_ by Pascal Boyer that you might want to think about:
*It's not all about god(s).*
In many religions the focus is on ancestors, witches, good and evil spirits, but the gods or a god plays a very minor role.The gods, for a lot of people who believe in the supernatural, just made the world and went away.
*Salvation is not always a central preoccupation.*
In many parts of the world, religion does not really promise that the ‘soul’ will be saved or liberated and in fact does not have much to say about its destiny. Dead people become ghosts or ancestors but this is general and does not involve a special moral judgement.
*You can have religion without having ‘a’ religion.*
Many people, throughout history and today, live in a world where their religious activity is the only one that is conceivable. In other words, while Tom Smith from Tacoma, Washington might be aware that he's a Methodist and doesn't believe in many of the doctrines that Catholics (or Jews and Muslims) believe in, many people are not aware of other forms of worship so they don't classify themselves as being adherents to a religion. Their way is the only way, as far as they know.
*You can have religion without ‘faith’.*
Faith is key to many religions we are familiar with in the West - what you believe is central to Islam and Christianity - but there are plenty of belief systems that are not like this at all. Many people in the world would say that witches and ghosts are just part of the world around them like trees and animals-though they are far more difficult to understand and control-so it does not require a particular commitment or faith to notice their existence and act accordingly.
Great additions, thanks. I should read Boyer's book. Sounds good.
It seems strange to me to elevate so many negative and abstract propositions about religion to the level of "necessary for religious literacy". Notice that all four of these propositions (as well as the first two in the video) are equally true of capitalism, cats, carpets, and car-racing.
On the other hand, if you have a little in-depth positive knowledge of the specifics of just one religion outside Christianity, then the negative propositions will be so obvious as to not seem worth stating.
How is believing in witches and ghosts not faith?
@@christinabutterfield1801 The case in point is _orthodoxy_ or the understanding that there is a "correct" form of belief. Many religious systems do not emphasize or even acknowledge this need for correct belief. In other words, you might "believe" in witches and ghosts, but this belief is more or less taken for granted in the context of religious practice. That is, the question of whether they exist or not is never really asked in the first place.
@@christinabutterfield1801
They are often believed in in the same way you believe in Giraffes. The belief itself is not elevated to a virtue, they are just honestly mistaken.
Great channel, I come back very often to learn something new, even after seeing these several times.
Reference books are good for details and also for larger context .....
Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion, 2016, 862 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 2005, 550 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, 2009, 609 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, 2013, 632 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, 2007, 708 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Mystical Theology, 2020, 704 pages.
Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology, 2017, 627 pages.
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 4th ed., 2022, 2 vols., 2143 pages.
Top 3 more things that everyone should know about religion.
1. Not all wars are done in the name of religion, because there are plenty of irreligious wars that do exist. Religion=/=war.
2. Not all religions do proselytization, because it's only reserved for a specific group of people.
3. Not all religions have an impact on society.
As Vincent said in SIlent Hill 3: "It's not uncommon for people to believe in the same god and still disagree."
@whoareyoutoaccuseme6588 Everyone kind of does that anyway though, because religion is pretty subjective.
What a great starting point for people who want to know more about religion. I hope you keep going with your content!
Rapture: how one feels when fools disappear from ones life.
Thanks for the video!
Now where is the Cole’s notes for each of the major religions in pre-Christian and Abraham times? That would be a handy resource!
It's also funny how the days in the week are named for Norse gods.
When you got to the topic of the calendar, I was hopeful you'd say more than you ended up saying. The calendar that we use (in the West), is based on Jesus, per the Council of Nicaea. But that Julian Calendar had flaws, so Pope Gregory came along in the 16th century and introduced changes to that calendar, hence the Gregorian Calendar we use today. When I traveled to Israel decades ago, I was dumbstruck to see that on their official coins and currency, they use their own date of creation, a much older date than the one we use in the West.
Interesting points, well delived. You don't have to agree with every religion, but not trying to understand them is done at our own peril.
Now, that is something one does not hear very often, but is COMPLETELY true: Religion is PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL! If only people would understand this better (or at all), the world would be a better place, indeed. BELIEFS, for that is what religions are, at least partly, would be stronger. More relying on personal discovery, and invention. No two peolpe are the same, and neither should religion be per se. Religion can enhance personal growth. No one should be subjected to a (religious) belief. This will only lead to misery, and destruction. As it has, far too often.
Did you delete your Marr Affleck vid? I'd like to see it and can't find it.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing
Yeah, definitely. I'd like to see it too!
July 9th 2020. Can't find the video either.
@@cycleplumber THere's a link in the top right of this vid. It's now unlisted, but you can still watch it. I'm curious why he unlisted it, but if you're having trouble finding the link: ruclips.net/video/m0HL_RaQgEE/видео.html
@@alicepow260 Thanks dude
Hello religionforbreakfast
You mention an earlier video where you analyze the debate between Ben Affleck, Sam Harris and Bill Maher, but I can't find that video any way I search? Was it taken down?
I remember when everybody talked about the Maher-Affleck debate, and everybody had very strong opinions aboit it. Frankly I've never had the energy to watch the debate itself, (I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher) but maybe with a calm and educated companion like yourself, it would be bearable.
Anyway, thanks for a a great channel. Greeting from Denmark.
1. this is a very important thing people forget. This is why the 'no true scotsman fallacy' always applies in religion. I always get tired of the radial left saying 'ISIS are not true muslims' with ISIS calling moderate west-loving muslims 'not true muslims'. NO! Any person who calls Allah the one god and Muhammed his prophet is a muslim, no matter who they love, who they don't, where they're from, and to whom they're afiliated.
2. I'm personally an atheist with a fascination for the flow of history (not specific events, but how everything slowly morphed to be) and it boggles my mind that even many Christians don't realise how much has changed even within Catholicism. They think that Lutherism is still the same as in the 1600th century and the list goes on. Why then, oh dear christian, are you wearing mixed cloth? You only need to read a few paragraphs of the new testament to realise how much has changed. This is why I hate it when religious people cling to the book. Don't do that, appeal instead to what the religion currently is.
Another point with this is once again Islam. The early caliphates were relative paradise to the current middle east and especially ISIS, which are by far and a way the most regressive Islamists have been since the beginning. During the days of conquest they would keep believes in other abrahamic religions alive, granted they pay a tax. They (usually) couldn't get high positions, but they were accounted for. This was far more lenient than Christianty was back then. Look how the tides have changed.
3. This is why I love going to countries with a non-abrahamic majority. It feels like I'm really away from what I know with all these new places to explore. Despite being an atheist, I know how deeply rooted christianity is in my culture, and I don't mind it. I think religion has beautiful things to it, that's why I'm subscribed to your channel, and you can appreciate it even more going to places that don't have the same influences that you take for granted.
I might be considered "radical left" as a socialist, but I agree with your criticism of many on the left calling ISIS "not true Muslims". It's Irritating, I know.
Since this is an old comment, this is for anyone else who reads this. The Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because there is one definition for a Scotsman: a man from Scotland. There is not one criterion for defining Islam. There are nuances that separate it from Baha'i, Christianity, and whatever cults like ISIS that have sprung from its tradition.
Deldarel well, all atheist are the same in my opinion... They are all humans, with functioning brain and heart, they like to breath, eat and drink, and they dont believe in any god...
deldarel
now we know that the us have been in an alliance with isis/alqaeda in syria(that we know of, could be the case elsewhere, as well). many muslims do think isis are traitors and not real muslims. dont they have a point?
Local, regional, & temporal differences make them entirely devoid of the authority they (many/most) make claim to.
Thanks for the Video!
Love your very objective way of viewing things, exactly what i wanted to know.
You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it. Objective study of religion for the win.
I was shocked to see the ad that ran before this video: "One for Israel" - supporting evangelism of Jesus to Jews! I don't think an ad like that is fitting for a channel like yours. Is there anything you can do about the ads that run on your channel?
Ironically, religious literacy does not include knowing what religion is. Because nobody seems to want to try and define it. And when people de try, everybody else is ready to point out a million mistakes and counter examples.
Humans are born to be good and exist together. We don’t need a religion to tell us what to do. Humanism and science are the only things we need. Not fairy tales.
Star Trek teaches how to live with differences, I see some of that in religion too.
How about this:
1) Humans are different
2) Humans change over time
3) Humans are really interesting and multi-faceted, and they engage with their surroundings as such
In theory, "Religious Literacy" seems like a good idea, but are the "three key assumptions" actually more helpful or accurate than my three?
Think how much more helpful my #1 is (Humans are different) than "Religions are internally diverse". True it may seem more common sense and less profound, but just how "internally diverse" can religions be? The answer is "atomistically diverse": as diverse as every individual in a population. If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to just say it that way?
Again, how is "Religions evolve and change over time" (#2) a better alternative to "humans and therefore human cultures change over time"? And yet, humans are still human. Why emphasize the change rather than the continuity?
The third point is perhaps (in my view) the most problematic. If a person self-identifies as being "not religious", how are they materially different from "religious" humans? Don't they have influences that shape them in every sphere too? Don't their "non-religious" ideas inform their voting, purchases, etc.? Are they religious despite their protestation to the contrary? It's much healthier to set aside "religion" as a distinction and instead talk about humans and their worldviews...which are as varied as the panoply of humanity.
In the long run, doesn't it make more sense for one person to receive another as an individual as a unique "instance" of humanity, listen to what they think and believe, and respond accordingly? Isn't it a better (and easier) rule of thumb to take each person as they come and ask them for clarification, not assuming anything about them which they haven't disclosed?
I think the key misunderstanding here is that these are key assumptions specifically for the study of religion, not key assumptions for the living of your everyday life. Yes, it's important to remember that all humans are distinct, dynamic, and internally diverse. Yes, it's important not to carry preconceived notions of what someone means when they call themselves a member of a religious movement. These are critical things to keep in mind when interacting with people as a person.
But in terms of anthropology and history, we also have to acknowledge that there are general trends and forces that those distinct people are a part of--and religion is a huge player in that. From a research perspective, we have to also consider the broader movement that individuals are a part of--a movement that contains infinite shades of color, but can also be written about and investigated on a broader scale.
Great work as always, but cool down a bit man, you're stressing me out! 🙂
I assume that Ben Affleck vs BIll video no longer exist? It's a shame, I was quite curious to see his opinion about it.
Where can i find the bill maher video?
I have recently subscribed to your channel and been pouring through all your videos. At the start of this video you mention an early video about the Bill Maher and Ben Affleck debate and examining it. Did you delete this because I cannot seem to find it?
Thank you for the awesome videos so far!
Yeah I deleted it because I no longer agree with my own assessment of that debate. I probably should upload a new analysis.
Lol i had the same thing, im command f'ing all the videos searching bill maher and ben like a moron.
@@ReligionForBreakfast A reminder: please do! The Affleck vs Harris exchange won't disappear from the web any time soon. And it isn't neat/orderly to have something like a reference here dangling incomplete. Analysis from someone of your background and experience would most definitely be useful regardless where someone personally falls in the debate.
Great job! Where did you get the Tatooine poster?
Hi is it possible for you to discuss the Cainites not the Canaanites the Cainites. Thanks
I disagree with point 3. Not all people outsource their religious view.
Religions not only evolve over time but also develop “fairy tales” explaining how they don’t.
No religion discussion is complete without a know-it-all using the word fairy tale
I just wanted to point this out. I was reading the Harvard site that is linked and some of the stuff about Modern History of Hinduism is factually incorrect and other times is only half the picture.
"The day is coming when all the religions of the world will unite, for in principle they are one already. There is no need for division, seeing that it is only the outward forms that separate them. Among the sons of men some souls are suffering through ignorance, let us hasten to teach them; others are like children needing care and education until they are grown, and some are sick-to these we must carry Divine healing." --Abdu'l Baha
Clearly, he could've profited from watching @ReligionForBreakfast !
A lot of good points here and I think that the purpose to push the diversity argument is to fight against the simplistic and popular generalizations about religions. It is important to stress the differences between religions and within religions and at the same time, to note that there are differences which are important (very significant or essential generally because of their social consequences) and others which are not. For instance, there is violence in the Bible and the Qur'an but it is not the same violence! One is much more problematic than the other!
P Belgazo Violence in itself as being viewed always bad, comes from a hedonistic philosophical understanding of what the source of happiness is. Islam and Christianity do not uphold a hedonistic worldview, so there is according to these revelations a justifiable violence. That is, the one which God allows in those scriptures. Even in modern states legislation there is a legal right to use violence. The only difference is that it is sanctioned by men while the other is sanctioned by God.
He does not have a beard. How long is this video? +ReligionForBreakfast
leave the text up longer
RFB, how about something on Omnisn? Spiritual but not religious is the latest thing. ☸️
Has the Ben Affleck on Bill Maher commentary being referenced been pulled? I can't seem to find it and don't have the proper context for some of what he's talking about.
Yes. It was cringy. Someone linked it in another comment here asking the same question. But be sure to watch the whole Maher clip to see why he was both wrong and hypocritical & it was the right thing to do to unlist it. Everybody makes mistakes :)
He said he unlisted it because he no longer agrees with his analysis at the time
@@pearspeedruns That's a major difference between the sciences and humanities. When a scientist changes his mind, he may publish a retraction and ask the publisher to delete it from the online archive.
The most scholars in the humanities used to do was publish their change of mind and perhaps leave the paper out of their "collected works" when they were about to retire.
What's even the point of having collective terms for religious groups if we take these assumptions as true then? Obviously some degree of this acknowledgement of differences across time and space and between people, but if, let's say, "Muslim" is to be assumed to mean different things in Qatar and Indonesia and different things in 1979 and 2009 and different things between practitioner A and practitioner b, then what is the function of the word "Muslim" anymore?
If the group means different things to different members of a given group it kinda feels like there ceases to be a group.
This is an excellent question. I'd say our use of categories depend on if there is a continuity of beliefs and practices across time and across various groups in the present (for example, belief in Jesus and practicing the Eucharist is almost universal among Christians both now and then). The categories "Islam" and "Christianity" are useful because they distinguish between two discrete families of beliefs and practices.
So we need to ask ourselves: "Where is there CHANGE and where is there CONTINUITY across time for a religion?" We can use Islam as a category through time because there has been a continuity of practice in terms of belief in the Quran, the five pillars, etc. The change in belief and practice has not transformed the religion enough to warrant a new category. But consider Christianity. There reached a point in the 3rd or 4th century CE where belief and practice changed so dramatically from Judaism, that we needed a new category: "Christianity." The transformation can be so significant, that our categories do indeed destabilize.
Naturally this means our categories are imperfect, but recognizing plurality in belief and practice does not mean we need to discard these categories entirely. They are still very useful.
Our Prophet in Islam told us that "the Jews are divided into 71 sects, the Christians into 72 sects, and my community will divide into 73 sects. All of them will be in the Fire except for one, and that is the Jamā’ah.” It was said, “And who are they, O Allah’s Messenger?” He responded, “That which (stay to the teaching of) me and my Companions are upon today.”
(Ibn Majah, Abu Daud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nisa’i). The hadith also occurs in many other versions as well.
But many Islamic Scholars concluded that most of the sect wont survive until the end of time. That is why we found only few sect today.
It's almost as if you'd need to know more about a person than Their religion to even approach understanding their belief system.
"Business" is the national American religion.
Woah, slow down!
While there is obviously diversity of belief at every level, that doesn't mean that we can't make generalizations about groups. The existence of outliers doesn't negate the uniformity of a group. Every generalization about a group should be taken with a grain of salt, but that isn't to say that there isn't reliable truth in the likelihood of behavior in line with these generalizations. As long as we recognize that "Christians vote Republican" is a generalization, and as such we should not expect that behavior of every single member, the statement still conveys useful information in what behavior to generally expect from that group.
I agree to a certain extent. As long as we are gaining more from the generalization than losing. So, "Christians believe in the Trinity" is a safe generalization." But your example "Christians vote Republican" I think is too broad of a generalization, and we would lose the fact that Mainline Protestants and 50% of Catholics tend to vote Democrat. I'd add some qualifiers like: "American Evangelical Christians tend to vote Republican."
Generalizations hold varying degrees of truth. I admit that your example "American Evangelical Christians tend to vote Republican" would be a more accurate generalization (if you remove the word "tend" as that makes it into a statement of tendencies rather than generalizing). However, given the implicit assumptions along with "Christians vote Republican" (American, and therefore by further generalizing, Protestant) it still remains useful, but to a limited sense. What I am saying is that "Christians vote Republican" is obviously untrue as an assertion and so presents itself as a generalization, and this generalization conveys the variable likelihood of Christians voting Republican, the variable of which to be discussed further. Knowing that a large amount of Christians vote Republican, even if a minority, my example gives light to the statistically significant Republican voting Christians, and so retains some value. Your example would narrow the variable from the beginning making it a more valuable single statement or start to a discussion. For clarity, "Christians vote Republican" as a bold generalization should not be used as a single statement.
P.S. Thank you for your reply.
@@ReligionForBreakfast I would disagree about your generalization about the Trinity, true, the strain if Christianity that stems from Catholicism follow that generalization but that really only covers"Western" Christianity and the generalization does s huge disservice
@@the13nthpartyboy not all the Americans in Brazil, Mexico, Canada etc - why do people call US America? It’s just one country within the two continents of America
@@topologyrob 1. This is a 4 year old post...
2. What does the U.S. being called America have to do with the discussion of generalizations?
3. The United States of America is commonly called just America because it is the only country with "America" in it's official name, and does not refer to any other place when used on its own. There is North America, South America, Central America, Latin America, The Americas (North and South), and finally just America (in reference to the U.S.A.). The reasons people from the U.S. are called Americans is because there is nothing else to call us, no other country's people are referred to by that name, and there is no need to refer to all peoples of North and South America together as one in short form. Having the name "America" or "American" isn't a prize, it is simply a name. Something to be used for easy identification.
Or, indeed, the skyline of the older parts of Mostar..
Doing a good job. Convert every one to athiest then It will be easy for them accepting Islam !
Islam the youngest abrahamic of the three religions, and no it's nothing more than a hodgepodge combination of both Christian and Jewish... All it is is trading one groupthink for another group of group thinkers😊
Why bother being part of any group?
Good points.
Can you make a video about where sepals come from and maybe on on the Jehovah’s Witnesses
Yeah yeah everyone is so busy for praying 15-20 minutes regulary in a day while being obligated to play PuBG or having drinks...
true
i pray 10 minutes daily
Who can create new religions ?
Technically maga is a new religion with Trump as their new God 🤔 So essential I guess America could start a new religion😂
4- Religions aren't always theistic
5-Some religions are worse than others
6-Judging a person's character based on their religion is dumb
7-People can't choose to be atheist or theist (for the most part)
I don't think "worse than others" is very helpful in an academic context
8. Not all forms of theism involve gods that are personal beings
I liked your lecture - except you should slow down!
Why do you think humans seem to have a inherent need for religion?
I agree with all of this.
Diversity of religion is beside the point. It simply reflects individuality of people. It's the ideas in a religion that people share in common that concerns me because it's often when religion becomes dangerous.
Saying that before religion encouraged slavery and today not, implies that there is no modern slavery. But there is! Slavery evolves aswell. The slavery in Ancient Israel and Egypt is very different from the slavery in the Greco-Roman classical world and the Greco-Roman classical slavery is very different from the modern slavery. It's just that in all periods of time humans believe that their zeitgeist is the best and the most evolved there is and has nothing to do with the previous order. In French it is said: "Let's change everything so that everything can stay the same" Changeons nous tout, pour que ca reste la meme chose
Where is that Bill Maher video analysis? Because no matter what a person's religious, scientific, and/or political beliefs were between 2020-2021; their "God" gave them time to take on religious literacy studies.
Some say they had too much time. Some, scientifically speaking say time is really only relative. Some could, religiously speaking, say "God (or whatever you conceive God to be)" jokes in mysterious ways.
The most important thing to understand is that we all pray to the same God. By understanding this we are more likely to try and have some respect when we talk with people of another belief system. Even if you are atheist you are still usually motivated by the general benefit of mankind. That is where respect comes in.
I don't know about that hair do...
It's not a person's choice whether or not they believe in a god. You can't choose what you believe.
Polar Bearon can you explain
When you choose to believe something, you pick one out of two to you equally likely possibilities. You believe in both the same amount, but you simply hope that one is true.
Belief comes before choice because if you don't believe something, it's not even a consideration. If you're chosing what you believe, you're actually hoping what you follow is true. Someone who trully believes doesn't need hope because they know for themselves they're right no matter what religion they believe in.
@@robertdoucet1207 force yourself to believe you're twenty feet tall.
You can't? There's your answer.
You may choose to believe that
@Dwarf From The North than you don't really understand the idea. No one can not believe in anything in regards to the nature of the universe. You either believe everything is organized, in harmony and intelligent or you believe in randomness. It's not stupid to use the world God to describe the universal law and it isn't stupid to believe in it. Believing in randomness is also a belief and it's equally unprovable as the universal law.
- diverse
- evolution
- universal
point 1 is a huge argument against religion, if everyone has their own god, why have an organized religion? I am not sure a christian who does not believe in god is a christian? Why be christian if you believe otherwise? This is religion being slippery and trying to appeal to more by saying, yes you can be christian but believe whatever you want.
Furthermore this is way too obvious. Every person who reads a work of fiction gets different things from that fiction. The problem is when they start believing what that fiction is fact
@borukamante absolutely false, there is no reference to Jesus being God or the trinuty in the cannon except in John which is the most recent in to h e Canon. Pretty arrogant and historically inaccurate to even suggest such a thing
Why do people celebrate the tradition of Santa Claus bringing gifts when everyone knows Santa doesn't really exist, and everyone knows people outside the West are likely not to believe in Santa Claus? It's because people enjoy the traditions and values it represents and the social solidarity it brings.
God follows society, not society following God, that’s why we don’t stone on our naughty wife’s these days
Yet the fact that it is interwoven in cultures does not mean it is true. One million people can believe a stupid thing but it is still a stupid thing.
So, what you are saying is that since there is too much to know about religion, it's okay to be lazy and assume that you don't need to know anything.
1. You are not likely to be able to understand even your own religion, much less anyone else's.
2. What you think you do understand is only valid within its historical context, and will get reinterpreted.
3. You probably don't even know when you're being influenced by your religion, so don't expect to know what is influencing someone else.
Maybe you won't credit my university degree in comparative religion, but I'm calling "BS" on this one.
Harvard is just teaching moral relativism and using a facade of religious tolerance to do it.
4. All religions are make believe.
5. All religions become more irreverent as we learn more about the nature of the universe.
Jesus wasn't religious
Jesus was a Jew. He practiced Judaism, which is a religion. Therefore Jesus was religious, specifically a monotheist.
Angel Moreno true which is the same teaching of Islam
@@A1.4U not exactly, since He claimed to be God and Son of God. He also drank alcohol and did not follow Sharia and things like that.
@@j.k.6865 hmmm he did follow the sharia he came to preach to the Jews to follow the laws and he never drank alcohol or ate pork what u on about read ur bibbible buddy
You are not alive ! You only exist. In order to gain true Life you need to connect with Life in Person , Jesus Christ.
Come, walk the path that was predestined for you, Son and Daughter of the Most High !
The Lord of Hosts awaits you ! Come !..
If we're Children of the most high God why do we need to connect to anybody to talk to our own Father???
Some religions are worse then others🖖
Some groups of people are more stupid than others
@thealdrintoscano
You haven't been to India
No some people use various religion for worse purposes
While I applaud your attempts to be unbiased, there is already a distinct bias in the coverage I have seen here: namely, you discuss "recognized" religions, like the Abrahamic religions, but you have yet to mention polytheistic religions other than Hindus. While many people assume that the spiritual beliefs of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa, and Australia are as absent as the people seem to be (especially in the U.S.; shout out to all First Nations people!), you err on the side of orthodoxy to assume that polytheistic religious beliefs are gone from the places that have been occupied by Colonialists for centuries. You point out that some religions are evident in many places by pointing out specific buildings, but you miss the subtler indications that older, more natural religions still exist--even in those places crowded over and fought over by the Abrahamic religions. What is happening to the Amazon forest isn't just happening to the trees--the government is trying to drive out all the indigenous people, too. Wake up! Western religions are the noisiest religions, but they are not the only ones.
Don't confuse the church with christianity
Historically in the west, its a dichotomy betwren the church and the faith, with protestants believing in faith over church and roman catholics believing in church over faith, but both aspects are christianity.
@@thisiswheezie it's funny, that's what Protestants profess but the practice defies that premise. Supposedly one is supposed to read the Bible and draw ones own conclusions but if one draws a different conclusion than the one predetermined by the church they are condemned
1. Religion is holding back the human race and we would be better off without it.
2. See point 1
Based on what?
What you mean?
Religion 101: Christianity is not a monotheistic religion but pagan in nature.
Couldn’t agree
Pffft that only your religion NOT MINE.
1. Cars are very diverse, but when you get under the tires, your fate is the same.
2. Christianity and Islam are still in favour of slavery. It's just that many people, who call themselves Christians or Muslims, do not agree with this part of the religion anymore.
3. That's finally a good point. Many people overlook that religions come with a load of believes about the world, which influence every aspect of our lives.
Taxtro it’s funny. our language distinguishes past and present tense, and yet you still get people like this who think that things never change
@@alexolas1246 in some ways, even the changes and the way those changes manifest themselves prove that things never really change fundimentally
The New Testament, specifically Timothy, denounces slavery. The old covenant laws don’t apply to Christians.
@@donthappybeworry5348
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
-Matthew 5:18-19
Jesus doesn't seem to agree that the "old covenant laws don't apply to Christians".
Where exactly does the New Testament "denounce" slavery? Because it actually supports it:
"“Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”"
-Ephesians 6:5-8
"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."
-1 Peter 2:18
It seems like Jesus, Peter and Paul all disagree with you.
@Somali Kid
Wrong. Was the bible re-written or the quran? No. People still defend the slavers in those texts to this day. And they hold the reputation of the texts to be more important than the well being of their fellow men. Even if they were completely convinced of the false narrative, the truth would still be there for anyone in the future to find.
That's pretty much what happened with flat earthers. Theologians hadn't believed in a flat earth for a very long time, but it's still part of the texts.
Catholicism is roman paganism, not Christianity.
Only if you like death.
www.reformation.org/oath.html
Enjoy serving Satan
Sure !
Sadly, the minute you include the name “Bill Maher” in the conversation you elevate the level of cluelessness exponentially