Abrahamism isn't a religion it's a grouping of many religions that influenced each other. Neither is Paganism, which refers to non-Abrahamic and in history non insert speakers denomination of Christianity. Their isn't that much connection between What people do in Haryana vs Inuit Shamnism, atleast a whole lot less connected then Islam is to Christianity. I hate it when people say paganism is a relgion.
I know it was a mistype, it should have been the Abrahamic faiths are not the only religions in the world. Which is something people do forgot Astrid. Your right about that.
It was started by a Jew who certainly believed he was working within the boundary of Judaism, though.*
Might have to do with the fact that there are currently 17 books.
To be fair early Roman writers thought they where, and some early Christians considered themselves Jewish too. It's real messy when they cut off.
Pro tip: bring a strong drink for when you get to the Bruce/Barbara in, I forget if it's the revival series or post series, but believe me you'll need it. Not to drink it, just to have it around, in the knowledge that if need be, you could down it, and be comforted by that illusion of security.
It's more that she used to be almost-romancing his adopted son who he accidentally drove away and inadvertently destroyed the aforementioned budding relationship of. Like. It might be technically mechanically kosher within most of our cultures as a romance. But uh....
Oh shit - no one is aware of what Jesus actually taught, for all the Gospels came down in copies written after at least a hundred years. And even the canonical Gospels are contradictory among themselves - so John seems to be a Gnostic and advocates a break with Judaism. However, it can be judged that Yeshua most likely considered himself the King of Israel, and predicted the end of the world.
Sorry - but so often they try to separate fundamentalists from "moderates", but it doesn't work. First, they can be accused of distorting doctrine and selective citation, but the same applies to non-fundamentalists. For example, the Chalcedonians can be reproached for being neo-Platonists in disguise, Protestants for denying sacred tradition, and so on. It is also possible to accuse a fanatic of violating "non-resistance to evil," but the fanatic can quote passages that condemn homosexuality. But not one of them is authentic - the sacred texts were written at different stages of the slave society. Religion is always trying to adapt to new conditions, and over 2000 years they have changed steadily several times.
eh any belief can be turned to fanaticism, religion is hardly the only thing people can be irrationally faithful towards.
Well, here, in principle, I agree, although clarification is required - but I will note that, in principle, I respect radicals more than moderate ones. And I myself am politically radical.
The problems problems start to arise when the believe includes parts about how it's the only possible way and all others must be removed.
