Discussion about religion bashing

[Bear]

hello friends

when dealing with the world's major religions there is actually something of a divide in the external sensibility of religious acceptance depending on the cultural sphere that you are examining (that is, whether you are looking at the traditions of ethical monotheism or universalist eastern modes).

in the already established context (aside from the mention of daoism) the notion of religion is being defined through discursively christian means - religio being a latin word for piety incumbent on members of a given christian sect, through creedal allegiance and affirmation. of course, examining the eastern traditions reveals situations in which this is either inappropriate or impossible (shinto, for example). it is not the case that religion has to be exclusive within either a society or an individual! characterizing this sort of divide as a lack of tolerance is sort of inaccurate, because the different religions cover entirely separate aspects of life.

as far as contrast between religions of the EM path exists, it is true that each believes their message to be the valid way (thus explaining their missionary objectives), but there are examples where the original doctrine, and intervening history doesn't really antagonize the other groups without a secondary, non-religious purpose in mind.

so let's consider some history!

examining judaism, an obvious principle is one that assures all righteous people, regardless of ethnicity or religious identity, a place in God's kingdom (see daniel 12:2). while this isn't an express outline for an afterlife, this sort of thinking is what allowed for smaller segments of jewish populations to exist within larger cultures that might otherwise be wary of them. following from this, much of jewish law develops in order to retain the communal bond between this cultural group across geography and time -while inside other cultures-. tolerance was basically a necessity for there to be a modern jewish people.

so in judaism we come across a period of apocalyptic messianic sects. then christianity. roll out some pauline doctrine from galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." well. that's pretty straightforward, but note that historically, christian dominated areas have allowed enclaves of people from other faiths without forced conversion provided that they did not threaten the status quo through political or other means. of course, salvation from this principle is extended to people of all sorts (that is, no one is excluded), they just have to be willing to convert. kinda tolerant as far as race/culture goes.

as far as islam goes, it is slightly different from the above but at the same time a combination of both approaches. consider surah 2: "There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing." the submission to allah required is just not possible to be forced. historically, when the umayyid empire spread through regional conquest, they did not eliminate the pre-existing elites and culture, but instead offered conversion incentives (tax exemption primarily), and provided a secondary administration post in the region (obviously to ensure continued imperial dominance). in this scenario, jews and christians were explicitly outlined as dhimmi - allowed to practice their own religion despite sharia being in effect, with legal protection higher than non-monotheists. so that's pretty tolerant.

but back to what i was originally saying! unless you consider anything non-monotheistic to not be a religion, probably half of the world's population follows a religion that allows for simultaneous participation along other paths, where different religious groups have existed alongside one another for centuries with only minor incidents directly relating to doctrine. some kind of cultural centrism going on in here

as far as the value of religion goes, there are a bunch of different reasons to follow a given religion:
- maybe you strongly desire a philosophical interpretation for the ultimate questions of existence
- there is a strong community bond and support structure based on long lines of history and connections between families and friends (this might be kind of difficult to envision for the secular individual, but as an outside observer I personally think it is the most important part)
- culturally prevalent rituals and values allow for it to be the path of least resistance
- spiritually fulfilling mystic practices are always there

well cya

Well said, but I find one major flaw in your post:

You Don't Capitalize The First Letters Of Your Sentences!!!

DO IT!!!!

[Telume]

Well said, but I find one major flaw in your post:

You Don't Capitalize The First Letters Of Your Sentences!!!

DO IT!!!!

Forget Daoism, lets follow Bearism.