Person 1: I am a member of the religion X

>Person 1: I am a member of the religion X
>Person 2: Do you believe in everything that religion X teaches and follow its tenets?
>Person 1: No
>pic related
How do we destroy cultural faith?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-christians-must-apologize-gay-people-marginalizing-them
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

how does one get to a point where it's worth getting angry about something like this? it's always been this way. religion, and spirituality by extension, is almost pure subjectivity. it doesn't take a genius to see that even within the same religion there are several branches that take their own approach to practice and the same could be done on an individual level. the only real difference between the role of religion throughout history compared to contemporary religious practice is that organized religion fulfilled the more functional purpose of unifying and empowering communities to grow in strength and size. in the contemporary world, there are a litany of technologies and social structures that carry out this function in place of religion, so practice becomes more personal than communal.

nbd user. carry on

If you say you're a Muslim, and have a tattoo for example, or don't pray 5 times everyday, and STILL call yourself a Muslim, that is what makes me mad. Like just call yourself an atheist ffs

>destroy cultural faith
>Luther is no more
>welcome to Pope's domain, obey him

How does it feel to be a tool?

>hold a monotheistic belief
>call oneself an atheist
wouldn't that be even more dishonest? any organized religion can be boiled down to something basic enough that the dogmatic characteristics of said religion get discarded. if you think Muhammad was the one true prophet, you're Muslim (admittedly even this is debateable in the Muslim world which is why sunni and shia are separate branches of Islam)

the modern world doesn't really have room for dogma from religion because one's own nation/locale tends to determine what's acceptable behavior by way of local culture and law enforced by authorities not exclusively appointed by ordained religious leaders

this is exactly why I don't get the fear of muslims. the vast majority of the muslims I know - I even know hardcore Erdogan or Ayatollah supporters - are actually culturally religious.

it's just that showing that you are religious is basically an indication of cultural sensitivity to your country's past and/or a demonstration of a general conservative outlook

Elaborate please? I don't know what you're trying to say; Luther's teachings could be displayed by an African for all I care, do you think his doctrine is for Germans only?

>this is exactly why I don't get the fear of muslims
c'mon. you don't REALLY "don't get" the fear of muslims. it's xenophobia, plain and simple. however, there are real fears mixed in with that lately. namely the fear of civil unrest and economic duress as a result of mass migration from middle eastern regions that have seemingly become a permanent theatre of war for foreign actors to play pew pew in

I understand, but if the Qur'an tells a "Muslim" to do something, and that person does not do it, what does that make them? They're not a Muslim that's for sure.

Fuck you Muslims are dangerous as shit. Their holy figure is a warmongering pedophile. At least Christians are only called on to be passive aggressive.

Please have more constructive criticisms please.

Martin Luther, you doofus.
His reform destroyed Catholic monopoly over religions and beliefs. He was not the first, but since him we have this notion of "you can make up your own version" after the rise of Protestantism and Pentecostalism.

Desiring a "unity of faith" is wishing monopoly over beliefs and the unholy fusion of Estate+Church in power.

I'm not asking for a unity of a certain religion, just that a person actually follow a faiths teachings if he calls himself a member of that faith.

this can truly be said of any religion with a holy text. statistically, most Christians and Jews don't actually practice their religion strictly to the code of their respective religous texts, yet they consider themselves a part of that religion and no one really bats an eye. that's just how it goes. imho we don't live in a time where organized religion can survive beyond the fringe without this allowance for personal freedom to be practiced alongside faith

Islam and some Christian faiths are different I believe. Islam has a lot of shit you can't do, and if you do them, you're not a Muslim. But for Christians it's easier with the whole Jesus Sacrifice, just don't be gay.

But they do, in their own interpretations, of course, since we diminished the importance of Priests/Leaders in general

In fact when a religion starts getting WAY too possessive about what should be done or not, we usually call it a cult and criminalize such factions

Die, papist.

But I'm advocating Luther here

I even called State+Church a unholy union.

You're making some wild assumptions about the Christian faith. There are countless "unbreakable" rules in the Holy Bible. Christians collectively stopped being elitist about it because, like I mentioned before, it wouldn't survive otherwise.
>just don't be gay
ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-christians-must-apologize-gay-people-marginalizing-them

The Muslim faith is on its way to reaching this same level of secularism, it's just happening much later than it did with Christianity

I'm not a Lutheran, I'm a baptist, and I agree. Anabaptists were persecuted hard when church and state we're mixed.

>Catholic
>Implying Christians need to listen to a faggot in Rome

There's also pedophilia in the Old Testament in numbers 31:1-18. those ancient people really liked their lolis

>But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I'm no biblical scholar, but can't this imply that the virgin women would be maidservants?

it could but given that these women children are only spared on the basis of their virginity is that the most reasonable explanation for someone who isn't an apologist?

Yeah, but they would be joining Israel so that's a bonus, and let's not forget that God ordered the complete destruction of the Midiantes in , I belive, Numbers 25, so this scenario should not have happened in the first place.

>Atheist: Are you a follower of X religion?
>Person 2: Why yes, I am.
>Atheist: Then do you do n? It's right there in your book.

yes they have a point tho. This "we're not under the law" crap has to stop.

But that's exactly what Paul says

But Christians aren't under the messianic law anymore, my man, moral law, yes, we still need to kill those who commit adultery and the like, but eating pork and mixing fabric is fine.

And yet Jesus says "not one jot or tittle shall be removed." Its almost like Paul is full of shit

unbiblical and unreasonable

>"Yeah well look at this one verse that I'm not going to show the context of"
Also
>The Bible is God's word only when I want it to be haha

It never says in the Bible that the stuff bound together at the council of nicea is conveniently the absolute word of God. I for one don't understand how anyone can reconcile Paul with James. But I will certainly believe Jesus' own brother over some guy who had visions.

>Pick and choose the Word of God
Do whatever you want, my man.

Paulians already do that by not doing works because Paul said they could be lazy shitters and they liked that more.

>Works
Not for salvation, sweetie

did he actually tweet that? The absolute madman

>muh council of Nicea

That theory has been debunked time and time again gnostic heathen

Most people in the world are like this, they broadly associate with the religion because it forms part of their ethnicity. Its how you get retarded stistics like 70% of people in France or like 90% of people in Poland are Catholic, but if you ask people if they believe in the Bible they'll say no.

This really grind my fucking gears. Don't call you a fucking Christian if you aren't.

What does it matter? Why get angry over the fact that there are people who don't obey 100% of the rules of an organised belief system put in place by men a long time ago? What does that have an impact on? And what makes you think a higher power would care about it?

Well in all fairness the book in question definitely suggests that the attendant higher power will flip his shit over just about anything.

Fucking Jesus said that, you phony

>Religion follows the guy who wrecked the church and whipped sellers in the front of the temple
>Says religion does not live in buildings
>Gives a big "fuck you" to 10 commandments
>In order to be a 101% official donut steel followers, you have to obey every single word the Priest says

I didn't say it wasn't true but its being used as an excuse only for salad bar religion

>We can put down these criminals because the Bible says so but get your damned paws off my cocktail shrimp

Persecuted by fellow protesturds, funnily enough.

This was also commented by Jesus, and his answer to why he needed 12 apostles
Was part of his plan get different account on same key events, and actually was encouraging people to do so
The retardation comes from modern Christians thinking Bible is anything but a compilation....and a pretty inconsistent one at that, so they keep committing slippery slope by the minute

>analbaptist
>Protestants think an enema is a sacrament

Reformation was a mistake desu

>literally don't know how o read
>gonna translate that one, lol

Not even gonna pretend the Greek version of the Bible comes even close to the Hebraic texts, but King James was a pretentious cunt for offering the ULTIMATE translation, doing such poor job