i am curious to know your opinion on sikhism.

Hey everyone! If you grew up religious and/or in some form of purity culture, we need you! This survey is part of a study done by the Global Center for Religious Research. This study is measuring the impacts of purity culture on adolescent development. If you are interested in taking the survey here is the link: https://forms.gle/5MY2qTeFfT2Yg4gm8

Thanks in advance!

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "This sub is about ignorance and misconceptions of general religious beliefs, not about when religious people do bad things." by u/WanderingPenitent
• "Apparently, the fact that sex is pleasurable is "proof that the Abrahamic gods either don’t exist or have no investment into what mankind is doing"" by u/lost-in-earth
• ""Happy Yule, Christians. Y'know, the ACTUAL reason for the season"" by u/lost-in-earth
• "I want to reach through the screen and slap someone"
• "The Pope is NOT God, okay? (Alternatively, the Pope is not the only person who sets Church doctrine)" by u/TARDIS40TT
• "Debunking "spiritual but not religious""
• "Atlantic op-ed claims Catholic rosary to be an Christian nationalist extremist symbol." by u/WanderingPenitent
• "Oh boy this one is a doozy (r4 in comments)" by u/TARDIS40TT
• "When I found out that Andrea Meyer died, and I searched up how she died. I was greeted to this post. How you would even correlate a mentally insane man who just happened to be Islamic with the notation that all religion is bad? It's expected as it is r/blackmetal , but I just find it so off-putting." by u/TechnicianStrong6731
• "Apparently not only is Jesus not real, Paul isn't real either, or Josephus, or... pretty much anything in history at all." by u/sneedsformerlychucks

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/radical-traditionalist-catholic-christian-rosary-weapon/671122/

Don't know what I can add to this. Unfortunately there is a pay wall so few have seen the whole content of the article. But the gist is that the rosary is a "sacrament" being used by religious extremists, specifically Christian nationalist rad-trads, in the US lately. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand the Catholic definition of "sacrament," what a rosary is, or how much it has been associated with non-white ethnic groups, in particular Hispanic ethnic groups in the US. It's not exactly a symbol of American nationalism.

This sub is on the same vein as r/BadHistory in that it is meant to point out when someone shows ignorance or a misconception about religion or a religious teaching. It is not for complaining about religion or religious people. If you want to complain about right-wing American conservatives, there are far too many subreddits for that. If you want to point out when someone has a misconception about Buddhist common beliefs, that is the sort of thing you will see on this subreddit. Future posts that do not meet the subreddits criteria will be removed.

So somebody asked "If God only wanted people to only have sex for procreation why didn't he make sex painful and childbirth feel really good?" on TooAfraidtoAsk.

For this post, I will focus on this comment with close to 1,000 upvotes and 3 separate awards as of this writing:

When a religious person is asked a question that corners them, they don’t often answer it.

The short answer to your question is that it makes zero sense and is additional proof that the Abrahamic gods either don’t exist or have no investment into what mankind is doing. This type of “evidence” that flies in the face of their dogma has to be discarded as an attempt to challenge their faith.

I actually tried to reply to the person on that sub, but my comment was removed pretty quickly (either by a mod or automatically by a bot), so I will just use my comment as the basis for my R1 here:

"The short answer to your question is that it makes zero sense and is additional proof that the Abrahamic gods either don’t exist or have no investment into what mankind is doing."

This doesn't really follow. At least for Christianity, many denominations don't believe sex is for procreation alone. For example, chances are you'll get a different answer on the question if you ask a Catholic vs if you ask a mainline Protestant.

So it is honestly ridiculous to claim that it is "proof that the Abrahamic gods either don't exist or have no investment into what mankind is doing", because the question becomes which Abrahamic God are we talking about.

I am not someone who believes sex is only for procreation, but I will steel man the arguments of people who do believe this for the sake of intellectual honesty:

1. The Catholic Church (probably the most famous example of a religion that focuses on the procreative nature of sex), also seems to believe that sex has an additional purpose of uniting the husband and wife. See this BBC article for example. So in Catholic theology, it makes sense that God would make sex pleasurable.
2. Someone who does believe that sex was only for procreation could say that it is pleasurable to incentivize people to procreate. There is no contradiction there.

Also in traditional Christian thought, the reason childbirth is painful is because it is a consequence of the fallen nature of the world (Genesis 3:16). So if you are going to object to the existence of pain in childbirth, it seems that this is basically more of a problem of evil type issue rather than some other issue entirely

Long story short, my take is that "spiritual but not religious" people are actually just as religious as the people they deride and look down on, just in a different way.

There is fluidity and an undefined nature to the definition of the word "religion," meaning that many spiritual traditions/paths can be arguably defined as a religion or not as a religion, depending on how you define what a religion is (video that goes in depth on defining "religion": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5KHDR8jdbA). In practice, at least in common usage, this often means that it comes down to identity: whether the practitioners of a given spiritual tradition/path self-identify as religious.

This in itself is OK, but the problem, IMO, comes in when people self-identify as not religious and weaponize the term "religion" to denigrate other traditions/paths. The grounds for doing so are specious at best: "my spirituality is religion *without dogma*," "there is no blind faith in my spiritual path," "religion is organized, my spirituality is not."

Those reasons are just examples, but none of these sorts of reasons actually make a decent case for how the difference between "spiritual but not religion" vs. "real religion" should actually be demarcated. I'll go through the above justifications and give some examples of counterarguments showing why these ways of defining the difference between "non-religious spirituality" and "religion" are just not all that persuasive.

For example, defining "dogma" versus reasonable belief/doctrine is very subjective, and there are religious traditions that are commonly accepted to be religions that don't entirely rely on blind faith/appeal to authority (typically considered "dogmatic"). Furthermore, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious" could actually be argued to be dogmatic in their own ways: for example, in believing in one's self and one's own ideas/feelings as a source of spiritual authority, believing in some narrative of reincarnation, believing in the "oneness" of all religions, etc. If the counterargument that "it's not dogmatic because we can change what we believe" is offered, then I would counterargue in turn that religions recognized as religions, too, are not static throughout time and space, and their followers can also change their beliefs - meaning this is actually not a point of difference, upon closer inspection.

Also, lack of central organization/hierarchy is another moot point. Religions/spiritual paths organize themselves differently; just because there is no top-down structure in a certain spiritual path as you might find in Roman Catholicism, for example, doesn't mean there is no organization at all or no institutions. There are spiritual traditions recognized as religions that have flatter hierarchies or are rather decentralized, and there are gradients and spectra when it comes to how religions/spiritual systems organize themselves: look at Protestant Christian groups, LaVeyan Satanism, Bahai, Wicca, and Pagan groups for a taste of this diversity. One could argue that an individual-centered way of negotiating spirituality/religion is also a form of organization, just another point on the spectrum.

Besides, a lot of people who identify as "spiritual" without claiming to follow a religion actually do belong to communities and groups (individuals who buy the same books and believe similar things) and follow the same leaders/teachers. Also, not having a "Bible" or written scriptural canon is also not a valid reason: Shinto, a recognized religion, for example, does not have a scriptural canon to use as a basis to uphold a definite doctrine; also see Yazidism.

New Age is a spiritual phenomenon that is studied as a religion by scholars in religious studies, alongside spiritual traditions that are well recognized as religions by the public. I recognize that there is no singular, satisfactory definition of religion, and I think it is fine for individuals to navigate the "religion or not religion" discussion as they please, working with that fluidity. At the same time, I think it is problematic that people weaponize the distinction to make themselves feel superior to others, when, if you actually examine the rationale for doing so with a more critical eye, those reasons for delineating themselves as somehow different from "those superstitious religious people" are actually not quite as solid as they might seem at first.

Over the last few days I have seen people on Reddit make the claim that the idea that Christians become angels is found nowhere in the Bible.

Example 1

Example 2

This is incorrect. There are hints in the New Testament and other early Christian writings that imply that believers will be transformed into angels (or at least something like angels).

Luke 20:36 is one example:

Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

The scholar M. David Litwa has an article about this verse:

Litwa, M. D. (2021). Equal to Angels: The Early Reception History of the Lukan ἰσάγγελοι (Luke 20:36). Journal of Biblical Literature, 140(3), 601–622. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1403.2021.8

Here is the abstract:

This article argues that the Lukan rewriting of Mark’s ὡς ἄγγελοι (“like angels,” Mark 12:25) as ἰσάγγελοι (Luke 20:36) indicates a more robust idea of physical and moral transformation. In short, believers have the capability of being transformed into angels or into entities ontologically and morally on a par with angels. This thesis is argued mainly by a reception-historical investigation of Luke 20:36 up to and including the fourth century CE. Ultimately, I recommend that future editions of the NRSV not translate ἰσάγγελοι in Luke 20:36 as “like (the) angels,” as if ἰσάγγελοι and ὡς ἄγγελοι (Mark 12:25 // Matt 22:30) meant the same thing. The ἰσ- prefix expresses more than the vague term “like,” and translations of ἰσάγγελοι should reflect the more daringly transformational sense of the term: “they are equal to angels.”

And another quote from his paper:

My examination logically begins with Acts (which had at least the same editor as the person who composed canonical Luke), even if the adjective ἰσάγγελος does not appear there. According to Acts, the martyr Stephen already had a face “like the face of an angel” (ὡσεὶ πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου, Acts 6:15) the moment before his heated speech in the Sanhedrin. **Before the speech, Stephen was not yet “equal to angels,” but his angelic face hinted that he soon would be.**24 Indeed, Stephen the “proto-martyr” became a paradigm for martyrs who would experience angelic transformation. For instance, the Martyrdom of Polycarp (2:3) described suffering, soon-to-be martyrs as “no longer humans, but already angels [μηκέτι ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλ’ ἤδη ἄγγελοι ἦσαν].” Tertullian reported that the contest of martyrdom would result in the “prize of angelic substance” (brabium angelicae substantiae) (Mart. 3.3). Although we cannot call these texts direct receptions of Luke 20:36, they support a robust understanding of angelic transformation: certain special people can become angels, and this transformation can occur before death.25

See also the journal article:

OLSON, D. C. (1997). “Those Who Have Not Defiled Themselves with Women”: Revelation 14:4 and the Book of Enoch. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 59(3), 492–510. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43723015

To quote Olson's paper:

The theme of the Christian as angel is not frequent in the literature of the second century CE., but it does occur in a wide variety of contexts—a book of apocryphal acts, a martyrology, an apocalypse, and theological essays. What is most interesting is that the idea appears only briefly in most cases and is never elaborated, just as in the NT. In the Acts of Paul and Thecla (late second century CE.), we read this beatitude: "Blessed are those who have fear of God, for they shall become angels of God."33 The author of the Martyrdom of Polycarp (ca. 155-160 CE.) remarks almost casually that when certain early martyrs were being burned alive they apparently evinced no sign of pain, indicating that they were "no longer men but were already angels" (μηκέτι άνθρωποι άλλ' ήδη άγγελοι ήσαν, Mart. Pol. 2:3). In the Vision of Isaiah {Ascension of Isaiah 6-11), a Christian apocalypse written sometime in the second century (possibly late in the first),34 we read how Isaiah received a glorious robe and became "equal to the angels" {Ascension of Isaiah 8:14-15). In the seventh heaven he also sees Enoch and other ancient worthies "like the angels" (9:8-9).35 It is not clear whether the author believes humans actually become angels (in 9:28-29,41-42 he seems to distinguish between the two), but it is striking nonetheless, that Isaiah is full of curiosity about the heavenly books (9:19-23) and wants to know how and when the righteous receive their crowns and thrones (9:11), and yet seems to take the angelic transformations of 8:14-15 and 9:8-9 as a matter of course. Clement of Alexandria {Frg. 2) alludes to Christians becoming angels, without giving any details. Near the close of the second century, Tertullian {De res. earn. 62) is fastidious enough to devote a short paragraph to the subject, carefully maintaining an ontological contrast between angels and glorified saints, but elsewhere {De orat. 3) he has no inhibitions about calling Christians "candidates for angelhood" {angelorum candidati).

Everything points to a widespread understanding among the earliest Christians that the redeemed are destined to acquire angelic status and perhaps even become angels, but the concept is apparently so well known and so uncontroversial that neither explanation nor defense is believed necessary. That it happens is taken for granted, but the questions how it happens, why it happens, or even when it happens (at death? at the general resurrection? upon ascending to heaven?) are barely touched upon. John the Seer is typical of his times in declining to elaborate on the theme of the Christian as angel beyond such clues as the allusion to the BW in Rev 14:4, a possible gematria of 144, some suggestive use of the word δγιοι, and attribution of similar liturgical roles to the saints and to the personnel of the celestial throne room.

​

This comment seems to echo a common sentiment on Reddit in that "Pope Francis hasn't changed Church doctrine, therefore he's just as bad as the rest of them!"

The Pope (despite the pretense) does not singlehandedly set Church doctrine. In reality, he probably should be compared to a President or Prime Minister; he is the leader, but at the end of the day, he still needs to consult his advisors.

Quite frankly, Francis has the unenviable job of pushing 1000 years of Vatican baggage up the hill every day. Reform takes time...

(Just a layman, feel free to repost this as r/badreligion in itself)

This post was on the front page yesterday.

I scrolled down and saw this abomination with 114 upvotes:

Happy Yule, Christians. Y'know, the ACTUAL reason for the season.....

So why is this bad? Because the claim that Christmas is based on Yule is utter bullshit as demonstrated by classicist Peter Gainsford in this blog post

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "I feel like there are some issues with this chart" by u/Terpomo11
• "r/atheism argues that the government should prohibit parents from teaching their kids religion." by u/lost-in-earth
• ""I wish everyone could get aborted" and "If Heaven is so fabulous, surely being there is better than being here"" by u/Goodness_Exceeds
• ""For every 'love everyone, forgive everyone' Jesus handed out, Paul handed out to 'fuck that, kill them' " and "Paul was born long after Jesus died"" by u/lost-in-earth
• ""The bible also says it’s okay for your husband to beat you with a stick as thick as his thumb, dummy"" by u/lost-in-earth
• "This is a test to see if something is preventing new posts. Even insipid ones." by u/ryhntyntyn
• "Happy Cakeday, r/bad_religion! Today you're 7" by u/AutoModerator
• "The Spam Filter is apparently out of control and removing everything. PM me or some other unlucky Mod for post approval." by u/ryhntyntyn
• "Losing friend to extreme religion" by u/charredzest29
• "Trace Dominguez:" Historians don't agree that Jesus existed. Also there is better historical evidence for the existence of the Buddha than Jesus."" by u/lost-in-earth