[scrubbed]

What's your definition of "orthodox christianity" here? Catholics, eastern orthodox and coptics are all splits from the original church (which hasn't existed for a thousand years). Protestants consider themselves to be closer to the source because they believe the catholics/etc corrupted the church over time.



Well Islam had a similar problem as the christian church -- it split a bunch of times for differences of opinion and either the different sects are all orthodox or none of them are. I'm not that familiar with judaism's branches.



Zoroastrianism predates judaism and is basically a judaeo-christian religion -- has a similar mindset on good/evil and heavily influenced all of the religions in that category.

Under closer inspection though it uses words/concepts that are cognates of vedic words (like Ahura/Asura, Daeva/Deva, Mitra/Mithra) and zoroastrianism itself was probably a Protestant-style reformation of ancient vedic religion. Vedic texts are also the oldest remaining holy texts, so that fits.

Tl;dr Hinduism is probably the closest to the source. I'm biased though.

Sikhism and Naziri Ismaili Sevener Shi’ism are the only two religions I know about* that I would trust in government.
Some Sikh saints have been martyred protecting the religious freedom of non-Sikhs.
The Naziri believe that if evidence and reason contradict the Koran, you must have been reading the Koran wrong. They don’t think it’s God’s will that we let scripture and authority override reason and evidence.

*(There may be others I don’t know about.)

EDIT: should be Nizari not Naziri.

I'm again biased, but I think Hinduism wins out as being the most inclusive religion -- they're not just tolerant, they claim judaeo-christian religions as a subset of their own religion. If you institutionalize it you get castes though, so mixed bag.



I'm not familiar with that religon (or sect?). What's it about?

[scrubbed]

@Riven:

Shi’a is a kind of Islam.
Sevener is a kind of Shi’ite.
Ismaili is a kind of Sevener.
Nizari is a kind of Ismaili.
(I misspelled Nizari in the posts before this one.)
...
The Aga Khan is the modern leader of the Nizari Ismaili Seveners.
...
The “Assassins” of the game “Assassins’ Creed” are supposed to be Nizari Ismaili Seveners.
...
If you read the Wikipedia article about them, it explains them better than I could.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizari_Isma%27ilism

I've come to the conclusion that if I was going to choose a religion it would be Orthodox Judaism. It came first and all these imitators are all about expanding and spreading religion and power and influence. Where as Othodox Jews actively have a word for non-Jews. Gentile. They don't care about how big their numbers are, they just stick together and believe with all their heart what they believe without pressuring people into it or trying to control the masses. Also Israel is literally right next to the Med Sea so that flood thing probably happened after the last ice age as water came in from the straight of Gibraltar.


Buuut, what if God was like, "You know what? I'm gonna add an expansion pack, like that starcraft series videogame that will be made 1998 years after Jesus christ is born. I'm gonna keep adding more prophets and more rules"

Everyone ITT judging religions by how well they reflect secular values. If you're going to have religion, then because it concerns eternal truths it must be the highest truth by which all others are judged. So the secular society should be judged by how well it reflects religious values, not the other way around.

I am a Christian who actually did convert to Orthodox Christianity btw.

Regardless of which way I lean religiously, I believe societies should have secular/humanistic values. Not everyone believes the same things you do, and enforcing religious codes tends to lead to oppression and/or persecution.

In the modern world, the point of any religion, whether heterodox or orthodox, is to make people feel more comfortable about killing other people.

@Denida: Stay out of this thread unless you have something to add to the topic. Thanks.

Regardless of which way I lean religiously, I believe societies should have secular/humanistic values.

That's because you are above all a secular humanist. For you that is the highest truth and you believe society should be built around it. Ironically this is still imposing a system of belief on everyone. A state without a religion simply has secularism AS its state religion.

Now obviously belief of any kind should not and indeed cannot be mandated, but laws must reflect a code of morality. There is no objective morality apart from religion, and therefore no bedrock for your laws and your society.

Ironically this is still imposing a system of belief on everyone.

I'm not sure it imposes "belief" necessarily (though we could debate the role of law in establishing popular beliefs in a society), but fundamentally the principle of secularism prohibits punishing or killing others for having the wrong religion (or no religion at all) and enables coexistence among people of different faiths. Do you oppose that idea?

There is no objective morality apart from religion, and therefore no bedrock for your laws and your society.

Morality is never objective, but I think it can be predicated on things other than religion. Personally I think most people's conceptions of morality arise from innate tendencies based on what is evolutionarily advantageous, regardless of their religion. It is wrong to murder because I would not want myself/my family to be murdered, it is wrong to steal because I would not want anyone to steal from me, etc.

[scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

In the modern world, the point of any religion, whether heterodox or orthodox, is to make people feel more comfortable about killing other people.

To be fair, while religion/divinity is often used to justify horrible things, it can serve a number of different purposes to different people. Even if you think it is ultimately more harmful than helpful (which is certainly a position one could make a case for), simply screaming "religion is stupid and evil and you are all dumb and bad to follow it" to the billions and counting majority of humans simply won't get anywhere. At least give them an argument as well as a bit of patience/understanding.

In that case, I would agree with him that private enterprises shouldn't be forced into doing/paying for something they don't want,

I can actually agree with that to some extent. It is quite interesting how many people who supported forcing the bakery to bake a cake for a gay wedding were suddenly all about the rights of private businesses when it came to social media censorship (pick a side).

But that also applies the other way around. Churches and religous orgs which are tax-exempt are supposed to stay out of politics altogether. Either this needs to actually be enforced or we need to start taxing them like we do everyone else who wants a say in policy.

[scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

It's all about who you allow to be in your life. I make a point to not follow political or controversial groups, etc. Even on the side I agree with. It's still a source of stress. Getting angry about something with an echo chamber isn't better than getting angry about something on your own.

As far as religion, I've noticed a lot of my friends and family are moving away from the old fashioned ways and choosing to lower their bible-thumping arm and instead BE like Jesus. They are happier this way and the stresses of conforming to a rigid practice is gone. Maybe I'm biased because I don't follow any one religious path, but I think that's the point of spirituality. Lead with your intuition.
That extends down to who you keep in your life, who you engage with, and who you allow to effect you whether or not you engage them.

My point is that neither are helpful for reducing stress or creating a positive social environment. I used to be in a great group that was full of smart, friendly people. But the subjects that were discussed were inherently stressful/angering/made me question the future of our species. It was when I distanced myself from it that I realized how much pressure it was holding over me. Be a little more selfish with who you talk to (people or groups/forums).

Well you're not wrong. I don't think it's a secret anymore that the masses are meant to be dumb and distracted. Consumerism is a parasite. And I also agree with you about the global problems. It's meant to make us feel underpowered and obliged to throw ourselves at it "for the greater good."
I understand addiction to internet. I definitely fell into that before, here especially. It took a long time to harness that and turn it into something beneficial and under control and not the poison it used to be. I hope you can get to that point too.

[scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

Marx was wrong.
Religion isn’t the opiate of the people;
it’s the PCP of the people.

Honestly? I have a really tough time back at work when customers are like, "You must be so glad to be back!" And it's like, sure, I'm glad to be able to afford my mortgage, electric bill, *and* food again (something not possible while I was on unemployment or would have been possible if I had taken any of the jobs available to me at the time I was unemployed). But it's like, I've gained 15 points in the one month we've been re-opened and I get next to no sleep and I'm stressed every day because of all the work I have to do at work to catch up.

In a weird way, there was one nice thing about the pandemic: realizing how detrimental work was to my health. The stress, the fluctuating schedule that made it impossible to have a regular sleep schedule, the constant lack of time to prepare healthy foods and/or exercise routinely. I was at my physically and mentally healthiest in that brief window when I wasn't working* and had a somewhat steady paycheck.

*Working as in, for an employer. When you own a house, there's literally never a day you're not actually doing work. It's just not profitable work that people consider "work" for whatever dumb reason.

[scrubbed]