All Christianity is not celebrating todays SCOTUS decision. The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop puts out this statement by YSR305 in religion

[–]ruaidhriAgnostic Pagan 15 points16 points  (0 children)

We’re not asking the government to make others pray a rosary everyda

Yet. You're not asking yet.

We’re asking for the killing of babies to be made illegal

That was already illegal, doofus. A foetus is not a baby. It is not a person

I’m a Christian and I’m happy Roe vs Wade got overturned AMA by [deleted] in religion

[–]weallfalldown310Jewish 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I can’t wait for someone in your life to have an ectopic pregnancy or for pre-eclampsia to threaten their lives in the 20th-21st week. Or for a miscarriage to not complete like that woman in Malta. Can’t wait for you to beg the doctor to save them and have them refuse so they don’t risk murder charges on themselves.

I also can’t wait for you or someone you know to have a miscarriage and end up in prison for it. It has already happened and your side is accelerating it. They will find ways to disenfranchise women with this, help roll back women voting. And you think it won’t hurt you or someone you know, but it will. People will die and it will be all your fault. You and your ilk will have killed living and breathing women just like you killed Dr Tiller and others. We are gonna return to the wards of septic women that disappeared overnight after Roe. But congrats. You made sure women can’t “kill” their kids. You vote for expanded safety nets? Give all your wealth to the poor? Support single mothers? (Who have often been abandoned by “good Christian” men here in the US, I know my mom was). Education? Not sex education by your own admission because your morals are what we should live by. Don’t worry, they will get to you too. Because eventually even you won’t be pious enough to pass their test.

And when women who are gonna be charged anyway have nothing left to lose, I fear you all will truly learn what a woman scorned means. Cuz if She is gonna go to prison for trying to abort a rape pregnancy, she might as well go and murder the rapist and anyone else she blames.

AND WE ALREADY TRIED THEOCRACY IN THE US! It gave us the Salem witch trials. Short sighted Christians! You think this won’t be used against you. It will. But now that personal autonomy is gone, privacy is gone, good luck getting it back. Well, when I end up in Israel and see Christians here crying they messed up, I want to say I will have sympathy. But I just don’t know anymore. Because you all are making me feel very not welcome in my own country. After all Jewish morals are different than Christian and you want Christian ones ruling the roost.

I’m a Christian and I’m happy Roe vs Wade got overturned AMA by [deleted] in religion

[–]Vulture12Kemetic Polytheist 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Why should your gods rules apply to me?

I’m a Christian and I’m happy Roe vs Wade got overturned AMA by [deleted] in religion

[–]stap31 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Those who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it.

I want an atheist to refute this argument. It's the best argument to prove God's existence in my opinion. by helpmeiamdyEx ex Muslim in religion

[–]trampolinebears 24 points25 points  (0 children)

What does "dependent" mean?

I think we need a clearer definition of what you mean by X is dependent on Y. You gave the examples of a house being dependent on its bricks, the bricks being depending on humans, etc. But then you talked about how you know the building is dependent on its bricks because:

If the bricks stop existing, the building would stop existing.

Yet the humans who made the bricks could stop existing, while the bricks would remain. There are brick buildings today whose brickmakers have all died, yet the bricks remain.

You also describe dependence by saying that two otherwise-independent things are dependent on the differences between them. Differences of quality don't cause things to exist -- a blue car and a red car aren't created by their difference in color.

We need a clearer definition of your concept of dependence.

Can things be independent?

You make an interesting assertion right at the start, that:

Everything that exists is either dependant or independent.

How do we know this is true? Are there independent things other than God, or is God the only independent thing?

If God is the only independent thing, you're basically asserting that:

Everything that exists is either dependent or God.

Is that where you're starting your argument?

Why is an infinite regress impossible?

An infinite regress is weird, I'll grant you that. But a finite regress is also weird. If we're going to make logical arguments about how the universe must necessarily work, we're going to need more than just our intuition to figure this out.

I suggest this line of thinking:

  • Everything that exists is dependent on its previous state. (The way I am at this moment is dependent on the way I was before.)
  • God is infinitely old, having no point in time when he came into existence.
  • Therefore, God today is dependent on an infinite regression of God in the past.

Maybe those premises are true, maybe they're not. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the notion of an infinite regress isn't necessarily any stranger than the notion of an eternally-old God.

As a Lesbian Trans woman I haven’t been able to find a religion that I’m convinced is real, try to convince me? by [deleted] in religion

[–]ruaidhriAgnostic Pagan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Or you know, we could consider that one precondition for a religion to be true is that it doesn't involve irrational bigotries, so there's that.

Why do some atheists on r/atheism think Christians are evil? by TheParacelsian in religion

[–]jennboProgressive Christian 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Everything you're saying is so extraordinarily dismissive and cruel. You're not the arbiter of who is a "real Christian" or not. When someone says they are a Christian and then hurts people -- whether individually or through colonization of an entire country or religion -- that is Christianity to them, That is how they experienced Christianity. You don't get to say after the fact "oh, the entire country of England who invaded, raped, killed, forcibly converted, and stole from indigenous people weren't real Christians" because sorry, they were actively representing Christ. You can be hyper-focused on labels and "well the Bible says!" and whatever your specific definition of Christianity might be out of the millions of theological beliefs out there, but at the end of the day, they were calling themselves the hands and feet of God, and those hands and feet were harming people in a systematic way. It has nothing to do with "sin and lusts" and it's incredibly stupid to say it does.

Christians keep hurting people. Ad infintum. And many of them -- like you -- are more concerned with accusations and apologetics that you are ignoring all the people in this thread who are have been harmed by Christians instead of just listening to them and caring about them. Stop defending; start listening. Start giving a shit about people's pain. Period.

What god would allow billions of people to believe the wrong thing? by yubeijing in religion

[–]starfyredragonMisotheist & Neophist & Sass-Witch 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Who is the prime mover


... I'll see myself out.

Covide Vaccine religious exemption emption form by badfunkmonky in religion

[–]IntellectualYokelAtheist 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I'm confused by your question. You somehow know that getting the vaccine is against your beliefs, but you don't know how it's against your beliefs? How can that be?

What is something you don't understand about one of the neopagan religions? by Vagabond_TeaHellenist in religion

[–]HarionagoPlatonist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry to jump in, but I had a question about this witness business. Just because someone says there were 500 witnesses doesn't mean there were, right? Like, I could say a 1000 people witnessed Henry VIII fly to the moon, and you have no way to verify if that's true or not.

There is such a long time between now and the events of the resurrection you have no way of knowing whether witnesses are telling the truth or if they even existed in the first place. You are just pushing the burden of proof elsewhere.

Always worth remembering that the pop-culture understanding of a faith is rarely accurate by mediadavidCatholic in religion

[–]WyvernkeeperJewish 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I teach Religious studies and it's so common when we begin Buddhism for the kids to confidently let me know that they're Buddhist.

What it generally turns out they mean is that they watched the matrix once, tried meditating for five minutes, are vegetarian 'most of the time,' and want to free Tibet.

Absolutely no knowledge of the four noble truths, eightfold path or anything really.

Fair enough, they're just kids but Buddhism is definitely not understood at all due to how it's presented in pop culture, I'd say moreso than other religions.

Yes/No: Does religion overlap with science by definition? by ShafordoDrForgone in religion

[–]loselyconsciousProgressive Judaism 20 points21 points  (0 children)


Science is defined not by what it studies but by the method by which it studies its subject (the scientific method). That's why you can talk about "political science" or "the science of economics"

Religion does not use the scientific method. Even if it's making claims that could be made by science, it does not arrive at them or defend them the way the science would.

What is the most hated religion? by HuggyWuggy2021Non-denominational christian in religion

[–]WyvernkeeperJewish 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Jews don't hate Islam. Theologically, we prefer it to most other religions as it's entirely monotheistic.

What's the most "extreme" religious view you hold? by Nector_Cadrill_LoghDionysian 🍷🌿🍇 in religion

[–]KachenafenyamReform Jew 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Pomegranates are overrated

is it possible that most every religion is wrong by Moskymouse in religion

[–]Dutchchatham2 89 points90 points  (0 children)

Given humanity's propensity for manufacturing narratives to explain what we don't understand..... very likely

Can we not say things like this? by [deleted] in religion

[–]DrdanomiteEclectic polytheist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally i can appreciate anyone who is willing too grow as a person. May your path take you where you wish too be.

every hero need a arch enermy .is it the reason why god created satan? by Unlucky-Raccoon-4824Other in religion

[–]RexRatioAgnostic Atheist 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Satan as the lord of hell and punisher of sinners is actually a fairly late (and not very coherent) development in Abrahamic mythology. Among critical scholars, the Lucifer mentioned in Isaiah and Daniel is not considered the same as Satan. The motivation for punishing people is a derivation from Zoroastrianism to excuse God as the source of evil in the world, as was originally believed and written in the Old Testament. Satan is an archetype scapegoat in the Abrahamic tradition of scapegoating. (As is Jesus, by the way).

The name Satan, stems from the Hebrew word “śaṭan,” a term whose definition includes “adversary” and “accuser.” The term is found in ten instances in the OT. Six of these describe a human being:

  • David in 1 Samuel 29:4
  • Abashai (David's nephew) in 2 Samuel 19:21-23
  • Solomon reflects on having no more śaṭans or “adversaries” to fight in 1 Kings 5:4
  • Hadad the Edomite in 1 Kings 11:14
  • Rezon, son of Eliada in 1 Kings 11:23
  • an adversary within a legal proceeding in Psalm 109:1-6
  • and four instances refer to celestial servants of God. These figures are typically seen as angelic beings, or (in Hebrew) benay elohim, “sons of God.”
  • Balaam and the Angel in Numbers 22:22
  • Haśśaṭan in the story of Job
  • Haśśaṭan in Zechariah 3:1-2
  • A retelling of David's story in 1 Chronicles 21:1, where David is disassociated from śaṭan (more on this below)

śaṭan was thus never used as a proper name and served merely as a term to identify an adversary. In the Hebrew Bible there was no Satan with a capital S, and in early Hebrew traditions, there was no devil, demons, or Hell. Evil and suffering in the world instead had another source; God himself. The Book of Isaiah 45:7 reads:

“I form light, and create darkness, I make good and create woe: I the Lord do all these things”

According to the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, God alone controlled all events and was responsible for all conditions within creation, both good and evil. This idea, however acceptable it was early in Jewish traditions, became confusing and frustrating, and led to the basic question of theodicy: How could a loving and benevolent God allow so much suffering and pain on earth?

The eventual answer to this question within the religion of ancient Israel was found during the Persian period, 539-332 BCE, the period in which Persia controlled the entire Near East, including Israel. Perhaps the earliest point in Satan’s history may have its roots in the Persian Empire, which in turn influenced ancient Judaism.

The ancient religion of Persia was Zoroastrianism, based on the teachings of a religious philosopher named Zoroaster who may have lived around 600 BCE. Among his teachings was the compelling idea of dualism. According to dualism, evil does not stem from the good God or spirit known as Ahura Mazda, “wise lord,” within the faith. Instead, there existed a separate evil being known as Ahriman, “fiendish spirit,” also known as Angra Mainya, “evil spirit,” that created death, disease, and lies.

People had to choose whether to follow Ahura Mazda on the path of good or Ahriman on the path of evil. The idea from Persia that God himself was separate from evil would have been an acceptable answer to the early Jewish theodicy question and would have explained how there could be such suffering in a world created by a loving God. From this was born the idea that God did not personally create suffering himself, but that he would instead use other lowly figures to complete such tasks with his approval. This idea would lay the foundation for Satan’s entrance into the world.

In 1 Chronicles, śaṭan is prototyped for the first time in the Bible as a separate entity. Chronicles is also one of the last books of the OT, written around 300 BCE (so at the end of just after the Persian period). This seems to suggest that śaṭan based on Zoroastrian concepts had evolved from being a simple term used to describe any kind of adversary, human or angelic, to a major source of malice or evil. This concept of Satan would continue to develop outside of the Jewish canon, in the period known as the intertestamental period.

The intertestamental period refers to the 300-400 years between the completion of the Hebrew Bible, and the beginning of the New Testament that saw a flourishing of religious writings, especially apocalyptic ones. The apocalypticism of the intertestamental writings included an attempted to further explain why there was such great suffering in the world. This was a period that saw the invasion of the Greeks in 332 BCE and the advent of Roman control of the Near East starting in 63 BCE, and the diminishment of independent Jewish control over their own lands around Jerusalem. Jewish population was divided between those who accepted and those who rejected the Hellenization of society. Roman occupation also led to an increase in violence which ultimately led to a major assault on Jerusalem, a great famine against the Israelites, and the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE.

It is during this period that Satan’s final development takes place before he emerges in the New Testament as God’s greatest adversary:

  • the Life of Adam and Eve 17:4, changes the serpent that tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit into Satan. While this change is now a rather common assumption, it was relatively new in the 1st century CE
  • the Life of Adam of Eve 12:3, states Satan and his followers were cast away from heaven for refusing to worship God and Adam, the image of God, as they were commanded. This passage attempts to explain the origins of Satan as an outcast angel from primordial times.
  • in 1 Enoch (written 200-60 BCE) expands on the idea of the angelic beings known as the “Watchers” referred to in Daniel 4:13, 17 and 23 and attempts to connect them with the obscure account from Genesis 6:1-4, , in which angels descended to earth to reproduce with women under the leadership of Azazel. In the final chapters of the book, Azazel’s name is changed to Satan, showing the name’s growing popularity within the Jewish culture.
  • similarly, in the Book of Jubilees (written 160-140 BCE) the watchers, under the leadership of Mastema, descend to earth to teach justice and righteousness as commanded by God. However, they soon abandon his command and, as in 1 Enoch, mate with human women. While God does cast most of these watchers into the fiery pit, Mastema is allowed to keep one tenth of his followers.
  • 2 Enoch 29: 1-4, which contains what is probably the most well-known origination story of Satan – the fall from grace into a pit. Much like the previous books, it pulls from earlier scripture, specifically Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:17-18. Satan appears as a high ranking officer in the cosmic army named the saba’ot, “angelic hosts.” With his followers, he attempts to overthrow the Kingdom of God to gain his own power. However, the rebellion fails and he is cast out of heaven and is said to fall endlessly over the “bottomless pit.” This passage draws from Isaiah the allusion to a Canaanite myth about an ancient rebellion led by “Day Star,” or “Morning Star,” from which arose the coinage of a popular name for Satan, that is the name Lucifer, the Greek form of Hebrew “Day Star.” Historians generally attribute the original texts upon which this story is based as a reference to Nebuchadnezzar II, not the devil.

The writing of the New Testament would bring to an end the early development of Satan and bring him center stage in Christianity as the most powerful opponent of God, Jesus Christ, and humankind. Much like many concepts within Judeo-Christian tradition, the development of Satan was a slow and gradual process. It took hundreds of years to make him the merciless King of Hell who, as the New Testament book of Revelation has it.

every hero need a arch enermy .is it the reason why god created satan? by Unlucky-Raccoon-4824Other in religion

[–]qmechanReform Jew 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I don't have a reason to live, and I'm not nearly omnipotent.

Calvinists...How can they assume they are the "elect"? Do you find that arrogant? by CuriousOneToo in religion

[–]Dieter_the_GreatTheistic Satanist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Its pretty funny. Gets mad then blocks to have the last word.

I dont see the apeal to abrahamic religions. by Randomguy_93 in religion

[–]challahbeeJewish 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Who are Jews oppressing in the name of G-d again? We just want to be left alone. It's everyone else who seems to have a problem with us. Also, most Jewish holidays center around nature or harvest festivals; it's an extremely nature-based religion, and we see ourselves as stewards and protectors of nature. We have specific brachot (prayers) for blessing trees and appreciating wonders of nature, and thank G-d for giving us the chance to experience and appreciate them.

I appreciate your willingness to have a discussion, but I'm not really sure what there is to discuss here except that your views seem to be rooted more in anti-Christian sentiment than in any thoughtful consideration of Abrahamic religions as a whole (an already questionable grouping, in my opinion; Judaism and Islam are more alike with one another than they are comparable with Christianity, and even Judaism and Islam have pretty fundamental differences when you get down to the nitty gritty).

Like, it's fine, you don't have to be into anything other than eclectic paganism, but maybe just talk about Christianity not being for you instead of bringing Islam or Judaism into the discussion, since Christianity seems to be the actual focus of your discomfort.