What does your religion say about existing with other religions?
I only have a familiarity with Christianity and the "no other gods before me" thing. I am curious what other religions have to say about it.
I only have a familiarity with Christianity and the "no other gods before me" thing. I am curious what other religions have to say about it.
Atheist here. My personal philosophy says to leave them alone as long as they leave me alone. If you start to preach or force it on me, I'll do something in the range of: politely excuse myself, to tell you to fuck off, depending on how forceful, persistent, and annoying you are.
But in almost all such encounters so far I've just smiled and nodded because it was often coming from people using religion to bring them comfort in difficult times, and they were often not forceful. And if they say things like "God bless you", I take it as a sign of respect, because they often say it out of either gratitude or out of positive feelings towards me. I've been fortunate enough to not encounter many religious fanatics, though I've heard many stories of them and am ready to pull out the Ol' Reliable in the form of "Hail Satan" if it gets to that.
Same thing here, but I am worried about the influence of "magical thinking" on our society.
And you can't escape this. Of course whether your neighbor goes to church on sunday is their choice to make. But in my opinion the state, schools etc should be secular. And they're not. Religion influences politicians and people to have biases, for example towards abortion, gay marriage etc. and that definitely has an influence on law, my life and that of my fellow citizens. I think lots of christians forget what the word 'evangelion' (the gospel) means. It translates to "Good News". And not not prohibition and trying to tell other people who they're allowed to marry.
Yeah, secularism is definitely something we should strive for. The effects of religion depend on which it is and which country we are talking of course.
I mean the Age of Enlightenment happened in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. That's a long time ago. I believe it's (still) not part of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany / constitution, where I live. It's somewhat different for the USA due to their history. But they have the more annoying conservative politicians and parts of society. I think as of now, major parts of the population don't care anymore about what the founding fathers came up with in the late 18th century. So there's no advantage there.
Yeah I'm German too. We have religion in school and as a tax.
And we were a bit late to the party with same-sex marriage because of the party with 'christian' in the name...
What I think is outrageous is that we have denominational hospitals, schools and kindergärten, and they don't have to abide by the same labor law as literally everyone else. They can - and will - fire people for things like divorce. Or being gay. All whilst being (sometimes entirely) funded by the state or health insurance.
And in my opinion we shouldn't allow them to openly discriminate against women and gay people... Have a look at what the danish people did and force the catholic church to do same-sex marriages... and accept women as priests. I really don't get why they get a special treatment when it gets to hating on people and they're the only ones allowed to do it professionally.
Very different from someone in the South saying "God bless your heart", which means they think you're being stupid.
Just start answering your door naked holding a sword, they will NEVER return
My (lack of) religion's attitude towards all religions:
Get ordained for Free at the Religion of Dudeism
My best friend already has been for a little over a decade and he's going to officiate my eventual wedding 😁
May you all be touched by thy noodley appendage
I've seen that porn and I am not onboard, but you do you so long as nobody gets hurt.
“No God before me” can have, and does have in the history of Christianity, three possible interpretations.
Of course this is just a model, all positions are deeper than that and most people mix two or even the three models. I don't know where the Orthodox Churches stand.
For myself, I tend to be somewhere between the second and the third model.
Thank you, I was tired of endless atheist non-answers.
We hate Microsoft. Long live RMS and the flying spaghetti monster!
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
Ramen!
Interestingly, Christianity is compatible with Judaism and Islam in that regard, though I'm not sure exactly what the other two say in kind.
The Christian God is the Muslim Allah, who is also the Hebrew Yahweh. All the exact same being.
Christianity embraces the God of the Torah but rejects the Muslim faith. There are exceptions but mainstream no.
You're close, but some Christians would argue that the god worshipped by those of Jewish faith is not the same god either and therefore not embrace that god. Those Christians would say that since Jesus revealed the trinitarian (Father, Son, and Spirit) nature of their god, to reject that nature is to worship a different god altogether. Similar to how Muslims acknowledge their shared history and feel a respect for Judaism and Christianity, those Christians accept and respect those of Jewish faith, but will still point out their incomplete understanding of the god the Christians worship.
That is a belief that existed and maybe some still believe it, but I don't think any large organizations would consider that canon. It's generally considered a heresy, called Marcionism.
Still, Allah is the same being as the Christian "God".
I'm not saying Islam is canon to Christianity. Just that when Christians talk about God and when Muslims talk about Allah, they are talking about the same being.
Just like in English, we call the protagonist of the Pokemon anime "Ash", but in Japan, he's called "Satoshi". But it's the same character no matter which name you refer to him as.
Personally, as an agnostic (leaning atheist) I don't have any particular dogma regarding other religions to follow. I will however share how I view religions.
I've yet to encounter a religion that is verifiably true. As such I consider the religions of other people to essentially be opinions (personal beliefs).
Opinions should not be held sacred in society, nor should they grant special rights.
The religions of others only really become a problem if they make demands based on said religious belief, attempt to impose their beliefs on others, or spread verifiably false information.
Two words: Spanish inquisition
Didn't expect that.
You never do
I am a pagan. There are pretty much no widely accepted texts within paganism that make any statements about subject. In my experience most pagans are quite happy to coexist with other religions in general - and given that in almost all circumstances pagans will be in a small minority that makes perfect sense. On the other hand, most pagans that I know are far less happy to coexist with the more bigoted and hateful varieties of religion.
There is a strong feminist trend within paganism and this - particularly linked with the ahistorial but often assumed heritage of witchcraft, and the associated history of hanging and burning of witches - does not lead the more patriarchal end of the Abrahamic religions to sit well with a lot of pagans - and I know a lot who are far happier about visiting the roofless moss-covered shell of an abandoned church, with a hawthorn growing in the apse than they are visiting an occupied one (unless it is in search of a sheel-na-gig etc).
On the other hand, there is a strand of Norse paganism that crosses into white supremacy and neo-nazism, so that brings its own hate, bigotry and patriarchy. I do not know what their stance on other religions is.
As a Thelemite, we’re similar enough that I just wanted to say howdy. Not many “new age” practitioners on Lemmy from what I can tell, so it’s always exciting to find another one in the wild!
It's difficult to tell how many there are around here overall. There are a scattering of pagan, witchcraft and occult communities, but pretty much no activity on any of them: I have made a few attempts.
But then every so often someone does post something on one of them and at least some of those posts get a significant number of up votes - but then no follow-up activity at all... so I don't know who is up voting or what their background is.
Anyway, howdy back at ya.
Looking at the world, seems likely that Satan is running it, not God.
When they say "Lord", which lord are they referring to in reality.... Without knowing.
Satan is a pretty chill dude, actually. God is the one who killed... Well, everyone.
It’s true. I met him in Mississippi and he gave me the ability to play guitar. Seemed very friendly.
Bruh you know you can just like... get lessons right?
He just wanted my soul. And I wasn’t doing anything with it. Sometimes, it’s best to declutter.
Ah yes. As Marie Kondo says: If it doesn't spark joy, get rid of it.
I think that's baked into all the abrahamic religions. The Old Testament says so, and the Quaran also doesn't like heretics, especially apostasy is considered really bad. As far as I know the death penalty is how to deal with apostates in Islam. But it's not really better in christianity or judaism, the same tribal concept of extinguishing rival tribes is in the Old Testament and Torah. All these religions believe in the same god. So theoretically they're more compatible with each other than for example with atheists or people believing in different or multiple gods. Or people renouncing their ways.
You can have a look at buddhism, hinduism etc to find a different perspective, indigenous beliefs, pantheism or agnosticism. Or the ancient greeks, romans or egypts or maya civilization. They all have a very different view than we have with our abrahamic God.
I personally like science. Just because it's the only sane approach to knowledge. And it has proven to be the way that delivers the goods. And I think this and the observations I made contradict with the existence of any God. And we should not base our decisions on ancient tribal beliefs, so I'm not okay with any of the Gods who tell people what to do and what not to do. I link proper philosophy and progress in what we deem to be our current ethics.
Abrahamic religions do not have death written for apostasy that's just some weird spooky myth Redditors tell
I'm afraid you're wrong, though.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2021/11/death-sentence-for-apostasy-in-nearly-a-dozen-countries-report-says
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
https://web.archive.org/web/20060116103512/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-1470584_1%2C00.html
And I've talked to refugees who fled countries in fear of being killed for who they are. Ever heard of ISIS, the jihad? islamic state or sharia law? Wikipedia tells me it doesn't happen that often in countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar... And it's mostly extra-judicial, not legal executions. But it's in the scripture. And also part of the law of a dozen countries. And I'm pretty sure there has been some genocide out of similar reasons in the wars in Syria and Afghanistan in recent times.
And regarding the christians: What's with the entire medieval times? And what was the whole point of the crusades? Christinity was in an open, bloody war against the heretics for centures. And I think they tortured apostates to death. Currently most of us don't do corporal punishment or death penalty any more. But we sometimes shun apostates and make their lives miserable.
I don't see a myth here...
I think the trick here is "written". I can't speak for Islam, but the Bible says nothing about killing all infidels and apostates. Maybe some old papal decrees endorse it if you're catholic.
Killing people for being different or questioning your ways is a time-honoured tradition for everyone.
I don't think it is very important what exactly is written down. These books contain lots of contradictions. And they're made to a degree so people can find what they're looking for. It's all interpretation and the same book can and has been cited to start wars, kill the neighbors, sell them to slavery, torture people. Or be nice to them. Considering societal norms and killing people: It's all in there, you can oftentimes pick.
And I'm not sure what's in the old testament. As I know it, it probably also doesn't talk negatively about killing apostates. It's probably at least allowed to kill them. I haven't opened a bible in 20 years, I'd need to look it up. if it's there, it's probably with all the "their blood shall be upon them." lines in leviticus.
The trick with the old testament is that it was written across a good chunk of the bronze age. Some of the early-written passages don't even assume monotheism or a unified Jewish identity, and as a result you see other slightly later ones selling it pretty hard (how hard is not worshiping a golden cow, really?). Joshua killed many, but I don't know off the top of my head to what degree that was about religion, versus ethnicity or literally just standard pillaging procedure. Almost certainly different writers had different perspectives.
White gentiles weren't even in the picture until Paul's letters, though, so I'm confident they weren't directly given permission for anything.
You're right. My brain kind of skipped a bit on the fact that what we call the Old Testament is also an accumulation of texts from a larger timespan.
I was under the impression that all of that was more a tribal thing. This is the story of the descendants of Jacob, the Israelites, Samaritans etc. Versus Babylonians, Egypts, Assyrians... And group identity was very important. You can't rob your direct neighbor who is part of the same group. That would leave everyone in anarchy and chaos, not a somewhat stable society. So instead you burgle rivaling groups of people, steal their food, donkeys, women, and make them your slaves. It's not really about ethnicity or religion. All of that is more a means of having a strong cohesion within your group and have them fight against the rivaling groups, not amongst themselves. Or a stronger group will take your things. Tribes also are friendly towards some other tribes and might share a common enemy. The content of the stories and traditions isn't that important, but it's what makes you distinct from your rivals, regulates who you're allowed to enslave and gives a feeling of belonging to your group and also reassures you that you're right. But in my view it's more a means of forming stable tribal structures, and not a cause of something. I'm not a historian, though.
Your reference is extremist terror groups backed by America. And you're linking secular websites as a source. The irony is truly not lost here.
Which one is a bad source... secularism? wikipedia? the times? feel free to enlighten me. i know i sound a bit negative, but i'm not opposed to learning new things as i think this is somewhat a topic that is important for humanity as a whole. i mean the terror groups like ISIS aren't seperate to the whole religion thing. wars and terror are part of that and can't be viewed seperately. of course if you exclude all the bad parts of religion and just view the moderate ones that do less harm... it looks way better. but both are a part of the whole story.
And the question was if the death penalty for apostasy is part of islam. And I said yes, it is part of law of countries, additionally people do it in the name of God. And it's written in the hadith. So whether you or I like that or how my neighbor practices islam or what the secular people think... doesn't change the facts.
This one you mean?
Fundie terror groups like ISIS and israel only exist because some morons fail to read more than three lines of a book and just ignore the rest.
You're entirely changing the topic here. That was not what we were talking about. But I feel for the people living there. The whole situation is just bad. And it doesn't get better. You're right with the history. The USA and USSR were fighting and funded the most heinous and evil people, gave specifically them money and weapons out of their own political motivations. Oil and other interests added to it over the years. Lots of that did not have the intended consequences, they could have seen that coming and all of that brought the current situation into existence. And they added yet more bad decisions on top in recent times. It's mostly politics and not religion. However I think some of the mujahideen and isis terrorists who actually do the murdering are fueled by religion. At this point it probably doesn't matter much since all they've seen since they were 14 and started fighting is violence and death... I don't have a point to make here. It's bad. I'd change it if I could.
In Theravada Buddhism, it call other religious views as just Micchaditthi (Pali word), originally meaning just "wrong view". But in recent years, atleast in my country the word is slowly becoming akin to stronger words like blasphemer, infidel, etc, which is quite sad because in the scripture, it seems obvious that the word wasn't use in such meaning.
Asking seriously: “ no gods before me”, does that mean it’s ok to have gods after that god?
Before as in order of priority, not chronologically
Ok, so him first, Zeus or some other god second?
Some Christians in India worship Jesus as their top god, and local deities as secondary gods. I'm guessing this is common in places where Christianity spread peacefully into a culture with a polytheistic (and preferably decentralised) pantheon.
It means "before" as in "in front of", not "occurring previously to"
Okay, so, what about after? Meaning he’s #1, can you have a bunch of others behind him?
I guess like the Catholics do, with Mary and saints and such?
You are supposed to never have any other god before the Christian god at any moment. That means that if you pray to the Christian god every day of the year except for one day where you suddenly pray to another. Then during that day you put another god before the Christian god. Think of it like cheating in a relationship. Even if you are exclusive to your partner 99% of the time that 1% still counts as cheating.
But what if I pray to the Christian Catholic God thing first, and then pray to other Christian Catholic Saints, or whatever they’re called, isn’t that putting their God first and then other people / gods second? Which means pray to him first and not last.
So I would pray to this Catholic god, then something else, therefore he is “first” and not “before”.
Know what I mean?
Indoctrinated I mean raised catholic so I got this one. To them, praying to saints is just a way to pray to God. You ask the saints to intercede for you. Basically pass them a note to pass to the big G personally.
How’s that not putting someone or something before god?
It doesn’t make sense.
Not before literally, but above. Catholics only worship God, but they venerate other figures. Like imagine you want to send a message to the ceo of your company, but you're a lowly wage slave. Do you snap off an email to the big guy himself, or do you ask your manager to pass the message along? Probably the latter. But even though you're going through a middleman, the ceo is still the big boss. Same thing with God and saints.
With catholicism you're pretty much allowed to make up anything. We just have one god. But that's obviously not enough so we made up the holy trinity, so he/she is one... But also three. And we've incorporated pagan holidays and beliefs. There it fairies, monsters etc, we just call them angels and deamons and such. And you can pray to god... Or saints or whatever you like. There is a process to it. It has to by accepted by the pope and the vatican. And it takes some time. But they're not opposed to contradicting dogma. And don't believe in logic in the first place. So I'd say go ahead... You can simultaneously have gods before and after and at the same time have it the other way around. It doesn't need to make sense. If you're catholic, talk to the pope. He's infallible. Just don't introduce "making sense" to anything. We can't have that with religion.
It's just a few very old books with how people tried to make sense of the world back then, plus a few thousands of years of extra lore added on top, varying politics during the times and a few old men running the business.
Yes. Pavel Datsyuk is not God, but when he stepped on that ice, he was no longer a man, but a god.
I always thought the Ottoman Empire's millet system was interesting. Basically since it was a Muslim country that allowed other religions to exist, how do you rule them? Doesn't seem quite fair to make them follow your religious rules, but also you are a religious empire protecting everybody and what's in it for you to protect these non believers?
So they just had different legal systems set up for each religious community, and non-Muslims just had to pay a tax (the jizya).
It's all about perspective
Buddhism is widely accepting of other religions. I’m atheist, and love the teachings of the Buddhas.
Crom laughs at your god.
Nothing, I have none. #KISS
Tiny deism is quantum religion. And thus, it is all religions.
The bible says you are allowed to do with god's enemies as you wish.
In Gita, Shri Krishna says "I am everything". This kind of kills the "otherness" of everything.
I don't know if it's a denomination thing, but I am what you'd call henotheistic despite otherwise checking out with the "no other gods before me" thing. Anything may exist.
Are you something like mormon? I didn't know that there are christian(?) denominations that allow for the existence of other gods. I was raised catholic and my first of the 10 commandments was "I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have any other gods besides me." So that rules out any other gods. Along with the continuation of the story where god outlaws idols and sends plagues and burns down cities for worshipping anything besides him.
But I think I agree. Technically you're just not allowed to worship them. They may exist. It'd be a bit strange since the bible goes on and on how god created all the animals, angels, satan, humans, does all the things and some get lengthy enumerations... but somehow they forgot to mention that other gods exist... Just slipped their mind as they were writing it down.
The commandment, when written as is, is "you shall not have any gods before me". The words "gods" and "before" probably cause some kind of misunderstanding, as the commandment has never been seen as blocking the acknowledgement of other entities to me. Relevantly, in ancient times, the entities in other traditions were acknowledged as saints or demonic forces recognizable by the papacy. Saint Brigitte, for example, is a specific saint tied to a specific figure worshipped as a goddess by the ancient Irish. Angels in general are notable for having powerful or effective qualities.
But if the literal meaning of one word is important, we have to factor in the original hebrew meaning. I don't know what it says. But you cant pick an arbitrary translation you like best. My translation of the bible with "besides me" is equally as valid.
We are fine with anyone believing anything they want, we are a spiritual mutt church, and all we want for anyone is peace and happiness in whatever you do believe or don't.
I'm an apatheist. Just don't try and force me to care about your religion or lack thereof.
Shintoists be like: "Point at something and I'll tell you if it's God."
The 'religion' I think most accurate is all in on a deity of light.
Given light can be more than one color at once when not measured and different separated eventual observers can each measure different results then as long as a deity of light was fundamentally unobservable during this life and only observed on a relative basis after departing it - such a deity's qualities and characteristics are entirely up for grabs.
Believe what you want. If I'm right, all options are on the table - relative to you. So your beliefs don't constrain anyone else's or vice versa.
Even though I do think there's a rational underlying mechanical objective truth to how that setup may have been achieved, my guess is most people wouldn't like that version nearly as much as their own dearly held beliefs, spirituality, or superstitions, so my genuine hope is that after death what they most hoped to be the case for themselves is what they'll find irregardless of how it works behind the scenes or what it might be for others.
I am a Thelemite, which means I am a follower of the mystical system designed by The Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley. The idea of other prophets is addressed directly in our primary sacred text, Liber AL vel Legis:
“All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little…”
Most Thelemites I’ve met, myself included, interpret this to mean that most religions have kernels of useful teachings in them, but the difficulty of describing the experience of a prophetic epiphany leads to misunderstandings in the message by either the prophet or the followers.
A common practice among some Thelemites is to not criticize other religions for their ideas since we don’t always know the utility they could have for another person, but we do engage in criticism of religious organizations that are doing harmful things to people, especially actions that prevent liberty or self expression.
The thing that makes Thelema a little different than other religions is that we study a variety of aspirational techniques for self actualization in an attempt to have our own epiphanies about ourselves and the world rather than exclusively taking someone else’s word for it. Thelemites are encouraged to use or ignore even Crowley’s own writings depending on how it resonates with us as individuals. We often combine tarot, meditation, journaling, yoga, ritual magick, and every other aspect of our life to create a focus towards a goal that we believe to be our “true will”, or purpose for existence.
I encourage anyone interested in learning more to check out Lon Milo DuQuette’s videos on YouTube, or visit an Ordo Templi Orientis lodge near you to see our rituals performed live.
93’s to all my fellow magicians if you are out there!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Lon Milo DuQuette’s videos on YouTube
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
All religions by definition disagree with others and believe the core beliefs of the other religions to be false.
How much a religion implements it's superiority over falsehood (which I suspect is what you are talking about), depends on who is in CONTROL Whoever is in control will bend religion to achieve what they want, and we can argue different till the cows go home, nothing will change.
Welcome to Humanity, enjoy your stay!
Not necessarily. God by definition, as the creator of the universe, does not abide by the universe's laws. Thus it's possible to say two opposing things about God which are both true, and nothing you can say can be perfectly true as the limited language can't describe the unlimited.
100% agree. God can't be subject to the law of the universe or he wouldn't be God. He'd be a human then, have to abide by physics and logic. Wouldn't be omnipotent, not all-knowing and supernatural things wouldn't exist. Couldn't have created the universe in the first place. So he obviously can be anything and its opposite at the same time if he so likes.
In addition there are lots of religions with the same basis and same god. We just disagree on whether Jesus or Mohammed or whoever was his last messenger.