Which Abrahamic (or Adamic) religion is better for Morality and Economic, and Governance?
Which Abrahamic (or Adamic) religion is better for Morality and Economic, and Governance?
Which Abrahamic (or Adamic) religion is better for Morality and Economic, and Governance?
Yazidism
Christianity
Devil worshipers that can’t run their own country. Might as well be a israelite instead.
Is it a sin to listen to nasheed??
I like Muslim song
>Nasheeds are also used to spread propaganda and also encourage the west, or the Muslims to commit gruesome attacks, or refuting, on mainly other terrorist groups, Israel or America. A notable example is from a Taliban nasheed called This Is the Home of the Brave.
Yes.
Oh no...
Oh yes!
Baha'i seems cool, with the one drawback that r/exbahai adamantly says it's a cult
Either Roman Catholics with the Papal in charge of the government, or Eastern Orthodox is Justinian code.
It might as well be Mormonism.
De jure state churches tend to not work well (check what happened in Ireland, Poland and Spain). De facto (e.g. through parachurch institutions) maybe.
Apostates are complete bores and drama queens over whatever their religion was.
I take that with a grain of salt.
Bahaii has an interesting system for reform and continuous revelation. Probably the most future proofed abrahamic religion.
>Nooooo! My parents didn’t let me suck dicks and be gay and frick dudes and eat ass! They’re indoctrinated and their religion is a cult!
Judaism obviously
/thread
>Demon worship
Samegay
schizo
why are you so specific anon?
>Abrahamic religion
No such thing.
>(or Adamic)
All the ones on the bottom are a meme with barely any followers
Mormons has a pretty much have numbers in the West at lease.
Zoroastrianism should be included in this. Zoroaster is Daniel.
Nope, kys LARPing gay.
Zoroastrianism is just like the Buddha.
>Not a historical figure, and probably a composite character of several people.
>Never wrote anything, everything was just happened to be all oral tradition.
By the same logic, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad most likely didn't exist either.
Anyways, it doesn't matter that much if they existed or not. Philosophy is more important.
"Religion is the metaphysics of the masses; by all means let them keep it: let it therefore command external respect, for to discredit it is to take it away."
- Schopenhauer
Moses and Muhammad might not exist? Maybe. Jesus? No… too many Historians all attested he was real.
>Anyways, it doesn't matter that much if they existed or not. Philosophy is more important.
Okay Buddhists. I can reject your philosophy… because it’s all an illusion.
Just kys, low IQ homosexual.
And no, israelitesus has poor historical backing too. Christcucks love to lie or twist things. For example, Tacitus - he never claimed to see israelitesus - he was relaying what other Christoids were saying.
And I am sorry your brain is too malformed to engage in basic philosophical inquiry, apart from historical biases, in uncovering the nature of mind and reality.
Every single atheist scholar, agree, that Jesus was a historical figure. Those who say that he is a mushroom, or Mithras, or any other of mytheist, are all fringed ideas.
That being said, you’re one of those people who think that the Alexander the great was a myth.
>Every single atheist scholar, agree, that Jesus was a historical figure.
They don't. Richard Carrier is just one example of many that don't.
Jesus was a celestial spirit that guided people to gnosis before being euhemerized.
Muhammad was a fiction to unite disparate Arab tribes during Rashidun invasions.
Neither existed.
Buddha could have been from a tree shrine cult in Nepal given his earliest depictions.
Zoroaster could have been a composite, true.
Bodhidharma did exist though.
Anyways, I am the greatest mystic and intellectual out of all ages. People should just worship me instead. I am taking discipled fyi. I exist, and I am based. You are meant to be a b***h.
Jesus & Muhammad are documented in outside sources both within and after their lifetimes. Regardless of if they did everything attributed to them, they did exist.
By the same turn, while there isn't outside attestation, there are some key hints at Moses' existence, such as the fact he has an Egyptian name and marries an Arab, not exactly things that you'd expect from a non-Egyptian, non-Arab people's founding hero.
You're right about Jesus, but Muhammad's documentations are centuries later and from Iran.
Earliest documentation of Muhammad from a non-muslim source is 636 AD in Syria. That's hardly "centuries later and from Iran."
Documentation means it was written by that time.
The earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad is generally considered to be "Sirat Rasul Allah" (Biography of the Messenger of God), commonly known as the "Sira." The most renowned biography within the Islamic tradition is authored by Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 CE), though his work survives only in the form of extensive excerpts quoted by later historians, the most famous of whom is Ibn Hisham (d. 833 CE), who abridged and edited Ibn Ishaq's work. Later biographers also drew from Ibn Ishaq's original material, making his work the foundational text for the biography of Muhammad.
It's not a genuine revelation from a genuine prophet if the prophet wrote down his revelation.
This is simply a fact.
I don't know if Yazidism counts as Abrahamic. But you should add Atonism and Zoroastranism as Proto-Abrahamic and Communism, Capitalist Science and Wokeness as Neo-Abrahamic.
That’s why I meant when I said it’s a Adamic rather than Abrahamic. And Zoroastranism is Indo-European… like Hinduism.
History shows it Christianity
Marxism-Leninism
Should Atheism be added as an Abrahamic religion?
Yes.