They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[Immanuel Can]

I still distinguish between evils caused by humans and natural evils although the root of both are the same.

If the root is simply karma, you can't blame anybody but yourself. It's your karma. If you don't like something about it, then the only person who can change that is you.

Nirvana to me is a state of Omniscience and Omnipresence.

That's certainly not Buddhism. In Buddhism, it's a state of non-existence, at least as an individual consciousness or separate entity. It's like a drop disappearing in the ocean, or a candle being blown out...or so Buddhists claim.

[godelian]

And the same danger applies to Islam, of course, to the extent that it's jurisprudence-dependent. It means that men can simply manipulate people, pronouncing in the alleged name of Allah, but say anything at all they want to...and you'd have to believe them.

The difference is that you believe who you want.
There is no "church" in Islam.
How can a religion be a clerical religion without having a church?
Judaism and Islam cannot possibly be clerical religions, if only, because there are no official clerics that have a monopoly on preaching or interpreting the religion.

[Immanuel Can]

And the same danger applies to Islam, of course, to the extent that it's jurisprudence-dependent. It means that men can simply manipulate people, pronouncing in the alleged name of Allah, but say anything at all they want to...and you'd have to believe them.

There is no "church" in Islam.

Just imams?

How can a religion be a clerical religion without having a church?

By having a clergy. Imams are clergy. "Clergy" just means a supposedly "elite" class of men who tell you what to think. It can be in any religion.

[godelian]

And the same danger applies to Islam, of course, to the extent that it's jurisprudence-dependent. It means that men can simply manipulate people, pronouncing in the alleged name of Allah, but say anything at all they want to...and you'd have to believe them.

There is no "church" in Islam.

Just imams?

How can a religion be a clerical religion without having a church?

By having a clergy. Imams are clergy. "Clergy" just means a supposedly "elite" class of men who tell you what to think. It can be in any religion.

That class would need a monopoly on running mosques and interpreting scripture. There is no such monopoly in Judaism nor in Islam.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no "church" in Islam.

Just imams?

How can a religion be a clerical religion without having a church?

By having a clergy. Imams are clergy. "Clergy" just means a supposedly "elite" class of men who tell you what to think. It can be in any religion.

That class would need a monopoly on running mosques and interpreting scripture. There is no such monopoly in Judaism nor in Islam.

Nor in Christianity.

Number of mentions of Cardinals and Popes in the Bible = 0. They're 100% a human invention, and have nothing to do with Christianity.

[godelian]

Nor in Christianity.

Number of mentions of Cardinals and Popes in the Bible = 0. They're 100% a human invention, and have nothing to do with Christianity.

Monogamy is also not mentioned in the Bible. Most men mentioned in the Bible were polygamous. Christianity is not the religion that logically follows from the Bible. Otherwise, there would never have been a trial against Martin Luther.

[Immanuel Can]

Nor in Christianity.

Number of mentions of Cardinals and Popes in the Bible = 0. They're 100% a human invention, and have nothing to do with Christianity.

Monogamy is also not mentioned in the Bible.

It is, actually. Prov. 5, Matt. 19:5, Luke 16:18...and multiple other places.

Christianity is not the religion that logically follows from the Bible. Otherwise, there would never have been a trial against Martin Luther.

Catholicism is not the religion that follows from the Bible. It was Martin Luther who got in trouble with the Catholic clergy for saying just that. And the Reformation was all about "reforming" a clerisy that had become corrupt and unbiblical in their activities. They refused, and tried to kill Luther. If you've read anything about the Reformation, how come you don't already know that?

So Islam isn't at all special in that regard. It, too, has cabals of men who claim authority to tell others what to do, does it not? They're your imams, or maulvis, or whatever else they get called.

[godelian]

It is, actually. Prov. 5, Matt. 19:5, Luke 16:18...and multiple other places.

You are mentioning parts of the Bible that are not law but merely recommendations. Only the Torah is Mosaic law. Where does the Torah mention monogamy as a requirement? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon were polygamous. What would there be wrong with that?

If a man cannot afford to provide for more than one wife, he probably shouldn't. The majority of men cannot afford it. For them, monogamy is a practical requirement. It is, however, never a legal requirement according to Mosaic law.

Christianity is not the religion that logically follows from the Bible. That is why you cannot logically conclude monogamy from the Bible. If you try, you will end up doing what the Holy Apostolic Church warns against:

The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each heresiarch from the past has drawn his deceptive arguments.

If you want logic in religion, and a jurisprudential database of rulings to learn from, you need to use Judaism or Islam. You cannot use Christianity to that effect.

So Islam isn't at all special in that regard. It, too, has cabals of men who claim authority to tell others what to do, does it not? They're your imams, or maulvis, or whatever else they get called.

You misunderstand the influence of the ulema in Islam or Rabbis in Judaism. They are much more like social media influencers. The most popular ones will have a lot of followers.

[Immanuel Can]

It is, actually. Prov. 5, Matt. 19:5, Luke 16:18...and multiple other places.

You are mentioning parts of the Bible that are not law but merely recommendations.

You're incorrect. They're not recommendations: they're commands. And the first of them is in Torah, in Genesis 2:23 -- You couldn't get earlier, and you couldn't get it clearer, that monogamy was the original requirement of God.

Christianity is not the religion that logically follows from the Bible.

Actually, it is.

...the Holy Apostolic Church

I told you: Catholics, not Christians. We really shouldn't care a fig what their priests, their bishops, their cardinals, their popes, or your imams declare. They're just men. Their word means nothing. And when they contradict the Word of God, they're wrong. It's that simple.

...a jurisprudential database of rulings...

At best, "jurisprudence" is the flawed attempts of well-meaning men to approximate the Word of God. At worse, and at most times, it's just a lot of self-serving traditions made up by ordinary fallen men. There's no reason to trust "jurisprudence": it's neither "juris" nor "prudent."

Who told you that you had to believe whatever a bunch of old men told you? And why would you listen to them?

The most popular ones will have a lot of followers.

So it's about "popularity," about "how many followers" they can get? That's an even worse way to decide anything. Most of the worst despots in history have had substantial followings.

A better idea: don't follow people who are doing the wrong thing, even if they style themselves as some kind of "expert." Test everything.

[godelian]

You're incorrect. They're not recommendations: they're commands..

There are no "commands" in Christianity.

According to Paul, the law is a curse, just like Christ is a curse, who sets humanity free from God's law:

Galatians 3:13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

For it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’

In Christianity, there is only the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no salvation possible outside the church.

The Church decides what is doctrine while everything else are just heresies. If you think that you can come up with legitimate moral statements in Christianity just by logically recombining elements from the Bible, you are seriously mistaken.

What you are doing, amounts to what is deemed heretical activity. That will get you into trouble with the Byzantine secret police, the Spanish inquisition, or with a provost of the Church of England.

You are probably one of those quakers, Anabaptists, or even an evangelical born again heretic. They will end up deporting you to a penal colony, if you keep engaging in heretical activity.

The Royal navy in the crown colony of Singapore is short of manpower to combat the Bazulu pirates on the southern coast of Borneo. Since you are an incorrigible heretic, they may seek to forcibly "impress" you onto one of their ships and sail you off to the tropics.

At best, "jurisprudence" is the flawed attempts of well-meaning men to approximate the Word of God.

What does it say about a religion, if you cannot even do that?

You are trying to use logic in Christianity. That is not allowed. That is heretical activity. You must be some kind of Calvinist. Again, there is no logic in that madness. There is only the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, aka, the Spanish inquisition. It is a department of the Roman Curia in charge of the religious discipline of the Catholic Church.

The Church of England has one too. Their job is to hunt you down and deport you to the penal colonies.

Who told you that you had to believe whatever a bunch of old men told you? And why would you listen to them?

Why would anyone listen to you? You are not even an old, dying man.

[Immanuel Can]

You're incorrect. They're not recommendations: they're commands..

There are no "commands" in Christianity.

"I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34) Sure sounds like a commandment...

According to Paul, the law is a curse,...

Paul says no such thing. The Law itself is not a curse, but rather, failure to keep the whole Law brings a curse. You need to read it, actually.

Paul writes, "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good...Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by bringing about my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful." (Rom. 7:12-13)

So it's sin that's wrong; and the Law tells us what sin is. But the Law itself is not sin.

That's very obvious, really. To have a highway speed limit is not wrong; but if I drive faster than it, I am wrong, and I know because I've gone beyond the legal speed limit.

In Christianity, there is only the Church.

You're right: there is only one true Church. It is not Catholicism. It has no other name than that of Christ.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no salvation possible outside the church.

That's what the Catholics say. It's not in the Bible, and it's not true.

You are probably one of those quakers, Anabaptists, or even an evangelical born again heretic.

Maybe I'll worry about the rules of Catholicism in the day you become concern about how to be a good animist or idolater. Until then, you're just puffing smoke, I'm afraid. I have zero reason to care what Catholicism says or does.

At best, "jurisprudence" is the flawed attempts of well-meaning men to approximate the Word of God.

What does it say about a religion, if you cannot even do that?

It doesn't say anything about "the religion in question." It says something about human nature, instead...namely, that everybody sins and falls sort of their highest ideals. That doesn't mean the ideals are all bad, but it does mean you can't trust human "prudence."

You are trying to use logic in Christianity.

Very good.

That is not allowed.

Sure it is. Somebody's lied to you.

Who told you that you had to believe whatever a bunch of old men told you? And why would you listen to them?

Why would anyone listen to you? You are not even an old, dying man.

That answer doesn't even make sense. Would you listen to me if I was a old, dying man? Why? Wouldn't you rather pay attention to what God actually said, then to what some old, dying man told you?

[godelian]

You are trying to use logic in Christianity.

Very good.

That is not allowed.

Sure it is. Somebody's lied to you.

Luther tried to claim during his trial that it should be allowed to use logic in scriptural matters: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I am mistaken, I will retract what I have written. Neither the prosecutor of the Church nor the Emperor were particularly impressed with that defense. The use of logic on Biblical inputs is considered heretical activity by both the Catholic Church and the Church of England. That is even how you end up getting deported to the penal colonies. How do you think that the Puritans ended up on the East coast of the United States?

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics.
...
They insisted that the Puritans conform to religious practices that they abhorred, removing their ministers from office and threatening them with "extirpation from the earth" if they did not fall in line. Zealous Puritan laymen received savage punishments. For example, in 1630 a man was sentenced to life imprisonment, had his property confiscated, his nose slit, an ear cut off, and his forehead branded "S.S." (sower of sedition).

Using logic in Christianity violates the principle of "uniformity of religion" and will infuriate the Church of England's provost. The angry mob will slit your nose, cut off your ear, and brand your forehead S.S., i.e. "sower of sedition". After that, they will deport you to the penal colonies in North America.

[bahman]

I still distinguish between evils caused by humans and natural evils although the root of both are the same.

If the root is simply karma, you can't blame anybody but yourself. It's your karma. If you don't like something about it, then the only person who can change that is you.

Correct.

Nirvana to me is a state of Omniscience and Omnipresence.

That's certainly not Buddhism. In Buddhism, it's a state of non-existence, at least as an individual consciousness or separate entity. It's like a drop disappearing in the ocean, or a candle being blown out...or so Buddhists claim.

I disagree with them on this.

[Immanuel Can]

Luther tried to claim during his trial that it should be allowed to use logic in scriptural matters: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I am mistaken, I will retract what I have written. Neither the prosecutor of the Church nor the Emperor were particularly impressed with that defense.

You're going to have to tell that story to somebody who has a reason to care. So far as Christianity was concerned, Luther was right, and the "dying old men" were simply wrong. I have no clue why you think it should impress me. I'm not Catholic.

...the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens.

You don't understand Christianity, I'm afraid. It's actually impossible to "impose" a belief.

Remember that Christians believe the condition of the heart is more important even than the compliance of the limbs? As John Locke famously said, anybody who tried to impose a religion by force would actually be working against God. For God holds all men individually accountable, and they cannot be accountable for that which they've been forced to do, or forced not to do. They had no choice.

So you've just got the story so badly wrong that you can't expect any response. I wouldn't accept your suppositions under any conditions, because I'm simply not a Catholic, and only a Catholic would. I'm a Christian. And you'll find that that is quite a different thing.

As for what men may do, my answer is the same as the apostle Peter's: "...we must obey God rather than men." Essentially, that was Luther's stand, too...and it's mine. Loyalty belongs to God, not to some ecclesiastical poser in a gown. Shouldn't that be obvious?

I see you're having the problem so many people have when they come to try to understand Christianity. They simply impose the suppositions of their own religion onto Christianity, and guess that "it must be the same." But it's not. Every religion has its own features: that's what makes it different from the others. And in the case of Christianity, those differences are so profound that it's not even accurate to call it a "religion" at all.

But all that you will not guess so long as you're thinking an Islamic way of thinking can simply be slapped onto Christianity, and that it will fit. It simply doesn't. We're not a religion OF commandments; we're a belief WITH commandments in it. We're not a system of jurisprudence, but a call for individual faith. We're not an institution, but a relationship with God. None of those things will, of course, resonate at all with Islam. But that's how it really is, whether you know it or not.

I'm just telling you how it is -- no hard feelings -- I don't really expect that from an Islamic set of suppositions you'll have any real idea what a Christian is. And I understand why you mistakenly think it's a Catholic, because the Catholics fit the Islamic pattern much better. They, too, have a self-arranged clergy, a preference for whatever that clergy says above the authority of Scripture, a focus on legalities and commandments, invented rituals, a history of conquest (though milder than the Islamic one, of course), a geographic center, big, splashy buildings, denigration of logic in favour of compliance, and all that other stuff.

But real Christianity has none of these. So you're bound to find it tough to get a handle on what it really is. But I'm trying to help you out on that, if you're interested.

If you're not, then we can move on.

[godelian]

...the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens.

You don't understand Christianity, I'm afraid.

You are completely missing the ball on this one. I did not write what you quote. This quote is from the US Library of Congress:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

The title of their article is: "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic".

You are basically saying that the US Library of Congress does not understand Christianity.
In that case, who the f*ck are you that you know Christianity so much better than them?

It's actually impossible to "impose" a belief.

The Church of England definitely did impose their beliefs onto the Puritans.
In that regard, the US Library of Congress writes:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe.

You are denying history. You are denying reality. You simply live in Delululand.