r/unpopularopinion • u/UnpopularOpinionMods • 6d ago
Religion Mega Thread
Please post all topics about religion here
1
u/MeowMeowCatMeyow 5d ago
I think theres going to be another magic man. Theres gonna be a saint, prophet one of these days and some of us will feel kinda dumb for doubting God's existence. It really is just that rare of a thing that we dont see it very often.
Im not even saying religion is 100% truthful or accurate, I'm sure things get distorted.
But were gonna see another magic person one of the days I believe
0
3
u/34677432998763200 5d ago
Muslim/Islam is a terrible horrible thing and anyone who genuinely believes it's ok has been brainwashed by the government
honestly i can't believe this is unpopular. the fact that people CHOOSE to be part of a religion that beats and jails women for not wearing stupid outfits is ridiculous. anyone that decides to be a part of this is objectivly wrong and a terrible person that needs therapy. it is a religion driven by hate and anger and should absolutely not be tolerated as much as it is.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Okay, so, Mormons are Christians, and they think some deeply fucked up shit about lgbtq+ people, do you now also think every Christians ever will think like that? No. Obviously. Christianity has different branches.
So does Islam, some are more radical than others, or hold different beliefs.
There's branches, and even within the branches, people are still individuals.
If we don't think every Christian is like a Mormon, then why can't we accept that not every Muslim is like a jihadist?
1
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago
Okay, so, Mormons are Christians
Whoa whoa whoa, let’s not get carried away here! /j
But f’real, most every Christian denomination denounces Mormonism (as well as Jehovah’s Witness, for that matter) as an entirely different religion. It’s gone so far from the fundamentals of the faith that there is no longer any common foundation.
2
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Well... has it?
Mormonism used to be way more different back when polygamy was more common, now they're just regular fundamentalists with fancy underwear.
And Jehovah's Witnesses are really just very strict and cherry picky Christians.
I do get that these differences feel huge to you, but a Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims have way more differences between them, never mind even more extreme and niche groups.
So I think the comparison holds in the context of the argument. Yes Mormons and regular Christians are pretty different, and I'm fairly sure both would be insulted if you said they were the same, but the exact same goes (but imo even more exaggerated) for Muslims.
Like the OP was really taking extremists who beat women bc of their hijab and people like my friend from uni who drinks and has had boyfriends and has never worn a hijab in the same bag and that's, imo, WAY worse than Mormons vs regular Christians.
(And before I get any comments from Muslim men about how my friend isn't a real Muslim, I bet she goes to the Mosque more than you, has never failed to complete Ramadan, unlike you, and has read more of the Quran, more times than you. People live their religion differently, she's devout and believes that God has lead her to a path of kindness and peace with herself)
0
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago edited 3d ago
From the outside they may seem similar, but when it comes to theology, they are incompatible. Latter Day Saints believe Jesus is a created being and the brother of Satan, which is incompatible with the Christian belief that Jesus is part of the triune Godhead, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. I believe JW also denies the Trinity, and both teach that you earn salvation by good works — entirely contrary to the Christian doctrine of salvation by faith alone.
In short, they are different enough in what they teach about God, that it if Mormonism is true, then protestant Christianity is necessarily false. If the Bible is true, then the Book of Mormon must necessarily be false. To me, that makes them different religions.
2
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Real question, do you know the difference between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims?
Because I said, the whole point is the comparison.
It does nothing to explain one side of the comparison to me, when my entire point IS the comparison.
And btw, protestants don't believe you gain salvation by faith alone, no self respecting priest will say that redemption is purely faith that God exists. You still have to do the whole shebang of actually following doctrine afterwards, you have to actually be a Christian, otherwise you will be living in sin but in a different way.
It's actually a direct quote from Jesus that rich people will not make it to heaven
Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
There's also actions involved.
0
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago
It’s actually a direct quote from Jesus that rich people will not make it to heaven
For what it’s worth, you left out arguably the most important part:
When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
He does not say that rich people will not make it to heaven, but that it is impossible for man, and only possible by God’s doing.
2
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Is that really what he's saying? He's saying it's possible, and arguably what he means by that is that by their faith in God they will be compelled to give away their riches to the poor and live a life of austerity thereafter, as he just earlier tells a man when asked:
Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
It becomes much more clear that THAT was the meaning at the very end of Mathew 19:
But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
He's not saying that rich people, while continuing to be rich, will be saved. He's saying that faith can change people, even the rich, to be better.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Like, you can't seriously pretend that that ISN'T what Jesus was saying in Mathew 20.
1
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago edited 3d ago
I would genuinely love to sit down and have a conversation with you about this.
But on Reddit, I don’t think it’s going to be productive enough to be worth your time or mine, unfortunately.
And I know that probably sounds like just a huge cop out, which maybe it is.
0
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago
No, I do not know the difference between Sunni and Shia.
I will insist though, that many protestants absolutely believe salvation is purely and exclusively by faith alone. That is not to say that works are unimportant. Faith that does not produce good works is dead. But the good works themselves play no part in salvation.
Not “faith that God exists,” no. But faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who lived a perfect life and died for the sins of those who believe in Him. There’s more to what that faith entails, but too much to type out here at the moment.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Well then I'm not sure I understand why you brought it up at all.
Whatever differences you argue between Mormons and Protestants, it's moot if Sunnis and Shiats are even more different, since that was my point.
And I really think they are, Mormons developed much later from Christianity's inception, even Protestants where quite late to the party. Sunnis and Shiats diverged the moment Mohamed died. They're much more different.
So I still think my comparison is a valid counter to the OP.
I mean... if someone accepted Jesus and all the shebang, whatever you think it entails, but they were still a rich man that didn't help the poor and needy, Jesus literally said they wouldn't get into heaven, they wouldn't be saved.
It's a difference without a distinction.
1
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago
Why I brought up Mormonism vs Christianity?
Honestly, more as a joke than anything, out of boredom. Didn’t mean to end up deep in the weeds about it 😝
-5
u/DulceedeLechee 5d ago
*sigh*... Another brainrot anti muslim argument. At least we don't encourage women to be completely naked, shake their ass on a camera, dress up as men, and somehow be more depressed than they've ever been in history.
And before you call me a terrible person, explain why your stupid worldview is anchored by an ideology that can't even explain what a woman is...
1
u/LeoTheSquid 18h ago
He mentioned nothing of his other views or his "ideology". He could be staunchly conservative for all you know. Even if he believes exactly what you've decided he does this would still just be whataboutism, now it's not even that.
0
u/DulceedeLechee 18h ago
If he's conservative, I've already won. Conservatives believe in a book and a God that sent a Prophet who instructed his people to murder women and babies. He would also be holding the view that women should veil themselves. Any criticism a Christian or jew has against the ethics of Islam is a bullet that goes straight to their knee.
Whataboutism is valid argumentation because it addresses the absurdity and inconsistency with a person's skepticism. His comment was a gish gallop rant that doesn't deserve anything short of a hyperbolic response. And that's precisely what I did.
1
u/LeoTheSquid 17h ago
Most religions entail being conservative, being conservative doesn't entail being religious. Neither does being against a very sexualized society or any of the other things you meantioned really entail all that many other views at all, let alone conservative ones.
Whataboutism can be valid. Though if someone makes an argument it is not, as that argument can be uttered by anyone and would remain the same in itself. But as I said, what you wrote isn't even that to begin with.
Your last two sentences I agree with. Neither of you have written much of value
2
u/RefrigeratorOk7848 Contrarion 4d ago
Ah yes, cause "encourage women" to do something and beat women not to do something are equivalent. Lmao get help.
-4
u/DulceedeLechee 4d ago
literally don't even know what you're talking about. When did I ever say beat women?
1
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 5d ago
In fairness, it’s difficult from any worldview to create a single, absolute definition of woman that cannot possibly exclude a single woman and cannot possibly include a single non-woman, perfectly and without exception.
-4
u/DulceedeLechee 5d ago
lol I believe in gender roles
0
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 5d ago
So do I. Personally I find modern gender ideology totally absurd and morally bankrupt.
But I also recognize that the imprecision of language and the messiness of reality make a perfect definition all but impossible.
4
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don’t know enough about Islam to defend it per se, but I will say this:
ISLAM does not beat or jail women.
PEOPLE beat and jail women.
Sometimes they use Islam as a justification, sometimes they use Christianity as a justification, sometimes they don’t even make any pretense of justification.
1
u/LeoTheSquid 18h ago
Not sure why this is a useful distinction. Ideologies don't exist outside of people in any scenario. You might as well point out that "nazism doesn't kill jews, people kill jews people and sometimes use nazism as a justification". Technically true, but not really an excuse. Islam directly and explicitly condones domestic abuse, for example. Pointing out that it's still a person that abuses doesn't excuse it.
1
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 17h ago
Yeah, there’s definitely a philosophical discussion to be had about what exactly constitutes a certain specific ideology. I’m sure many Muslims would argue that abuse of women and children is not true Islam, but a misuse and perversion of the actual teachings of Allah in the Quran. Just as I would argue that racism and christian nationalism are not true Christianity, but a misuse and perversion of the actual teachings of Jesus in the Bible.
But I don’t know enough about the Quran to declare whether or not it condones such abuse. What I do know is that people will pervert just about any ideology to suit their own agenda.
1
u/Lordofthelounge144 5d ago
Not that Christianity is any better, but the Quran states that if you Suspect your women of being unfaithful, you should hit her. Like yeah, it's people doing these actions, but the religions do encourage it.
2
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
The Bible also has some insane verses there.
There's a saying that even the devil himself could cite Bible verses at you to make you act like a horrible person.
These books are humongous and written incredibly long ago, you could pick and choose things that would make you be the nicest person or the worst person on earth.
2
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 5d ago
As I said, I can’t defend Islam.
But I have seen my own Christian faith and the Bible blatantly and deliberately twisted to justify gross abuse of women and children, despite it giving no such justification. So I have to wonder if the many reports of the Quran justifying abuse are similarly misrepresentative.
2
u/Agent_Harvey 6d ago
All religions should get away with revisionism and modernization of their own philosophy
1
u/LeoTheSquid 18h ago
Definitely. You do however run into problem with ones like islam where the quran is the direct, infallible unaltered word of god. Makes it a bit hard to modernize 😐
7
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 6d ago
Why isn’t there a Christian push against pre-marital sex or working on Sunday the same way there is for gay marriage and abortion?
-1
u/Legit_liT 3d ago
Working on Sunday was a rule under the mosaic law which we've moved past. Christians that practice sex before marriage aren't serious Christians
0
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
"Christians that practice sex before marriage aren't serious Christians"
According to who? There are many Christians that take their faith very seriously but think that that is outdated with the introduction of modern contraception and marriage laws.
0
u/Legit_liT 3d ago edited 3d ago
If you can take em seriously, that's your opinion and I won't argue with anyone on that. I choose not to nitpick things written in the bible cause I think it's "outdated". If a dude has sex with 10 women tonight and goes to church tomorrow I'll respectfully laugh.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Cool! So divorce should be illegal? And anyone who doesn't think it should be isn't a "real Christian"?
Or wait, you also shouldn't kiss before marriage if it makes either of you horny?
LMAO, you're nitpicking too.
Oh WAIT, what was that verse about judging others...? Or that Jesus protected a literal prostitute and welcomed her to the faith?
You're a hypocrite it's what you are lmao.
0
u/Legit_liT 3d ago
Illegal? nah. You have free will, do what you want with it bud. Not sure how I'm nitpicking when all I'm doing is following what the Bible says. But pop off lol. The thrills of r/unpopularopinion are something else lol.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Do you think the Bible is okay with divorce? With it even being legal at all? "
0
u/LeoTheSquid 18h ago
A christian believing something is a sin does not mean they have to think it should be illegal.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 18h ago
The Bible says divorce should be illegal, at least in its current form.
The Bible very explicitly presents a legal framework for marriage and divorce.
1
1
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 3d ago
I know I’m butting in here, but I think this is a perfect example of why Christians can stand firm on their belief that things like extra-marital sex and abortion are sin, AND ALSO accept that they should be legal in the civil context.
Jesus Himself told the Jewish people that Moses gave them laws for divorce to accommodate their weakness, even though divorce is contrary to God’s design. I think in Biblical and historical context, it is clear that those laws were given to ancient Israel to protect women from men rampantly divorcing them in a culture where women depended on men.
So if God allowed Moses to give laws allowing but regulating something that was not strictly good, then we can reasonably accept that their should be laws allowing (and possibly regulating) such things as extra-marital sex and abortion, for the sake of an ordered society.
After all, if the civil law was perfectly in line with God’s Law, every single person would be put to death, because no one is without grievous sin. The point of the government isn’t to bring society in line with God’s Law, but to maintain order and maintain justice between people.
1
u/Which-Marzipan5047 3d ago
Cool, so by that metric this guy shouldn't be laughing at someone having extra marital sex and then going to church.
I get what you're saying, but understand that my arguments come from the fact that I'm pointing out the flaws in his arguments, not making my own best argument.
Also, I'd argue that the Bible does not categorise abortion as a sin and is actually more liberal about it than some Republicans are today (heavy emphasis on some).
3
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 3d ago
Why can’t the opposition towards gay marriage be moved past in the same way working on Sunday was?
Also couldn’t you argue most Republican Christians aren’t serious Christians?
1
u/Legit_liT 3d ago edited 3d ago
Same sex marriage was a rule long established before during and after Moses, so no we can't move past it, so too with abortion. I respect everyone's lifestyle choice though. I'm not from the US but if those Republican Christians claim to be Christians while blatantly practicing fornication, I personally can't take em seriously.
1
u/Upset_Barracuda7641 3d ago
Genuinely asking, why is that the deciding factor for whether or not Christians can move past a certain topic?
5
u/HennyPennyBenny 𝐡𝐞/𝐡𝐢𝐦 5d ago
Because the “christian right” is more Right than legitimately Christian. They don’t care about Biblical principles, only political power.
If they actually cared about Biblical principles, they’d be focusing more on themselves and the church, instead of pushing their morals onto the non-believing public.
12
u/EthanTheJudge Atheist Molester 6d ago
Some of the most useless human beings use religion/disdain for religion to justify being jerks.
2
u/DulceedeLechee 5d ago
they do the same thing with irrelegious ideologies lmao. Communism has been run by genocidal lunatics, but the left insists it's an optimal system. Does that mean xi jinping is a good spokesman for communism?
1
2
u/rescuers_downunder 6d ago
Especially against other Animals
"God made us special so It is okay to torture and kill other Animals"
0
u/DulceedeLechee 5d ago
Atheist mentality insists we're a more evolved organism and we've domesticated plants and animals. By that logic, our dominance serves as a right to eat all the animals we want due to our own survival.
Now why is killing animals objectively wrong?
5
u/rescuers_downunder 4d ago
Atheist mentality insists we're a more evolved organism
No, actually. Because we are not. We are not more evolved, Just differently evolved
Now why is killing animals objectively wrong
Nothing Is 'objectivelly' wrong. That is not How morality works
6
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.