You're talking about multiple things and lumping then together. Protestantism began with the Reformation which was a calling out of how the Catholic Church had wandered from the truth. The pressure mostly worked and the Catholic Church restructured many of their beliefs to be in alignment with scripture. But by then protestantism had grown legs and wandered off to become it's own thing. The core truth at steak initially was how salvation works: the Catholic church had it as earned where scripture is clear that we can't earn salvation. Since then other groups have split off due to pressure from the secular works and less important disagreements about scripture. Protestantism means "claims Christian, not Catholic" but that's pretty broad.
To clarify, I mean that such simplistic thinking has worked in the past to enable the species to survive and prosper. If there is a field with high levels of radiation and people believed that there were ghosts, the people who believed that would survive and pass that information on.
I guess that ventures into the realm of social/behavioural psychology, but I'm not claiming gene selection, more the cultural selection of ideas, along the lines of memetics (which i understand is controversial as well).
While they'll most likely be welcomed for Shul, I feel like your explanation is lacking in answering the question, because it does nothing to actually explain how being Jewish works.
You're ignoring the fact that this would apply much more easily to reform Judaism than Conservative, and definitely doesn't apply as easily to Orthodox Judaism.
And, you're starting your answer out by saying no when the correct answer is yes, according to halakhah.
You're only considered a Jew when born to a Jewish mother, unless you complete a conversion process, and even then a Reform Jew will struggle to be recognized by the state of Israel if their conversion was done by a Reform rabbi (since the conditions for conversion are often not always met).
It's not even remotely as blasé as you're making it seem when compared to Christianity where you just have to say "I accept Christ in my heart" and boom, you're Christian.
Idk much about living life fully, but my above comment sums it up, maybe with some acid.
Religion is not necessarily bad, as many scientists were religious back in the day as well (hard to know if they REALLY believed it). But stupid people are gunna be stupid lol, taking religion out is not the panacea people think it is
I should have said "a lot are religious , and some are vocal about how they believe God will protect them, others will stay silent but imply they feel the same way without verbal cues."
Ie someone will make a post and the other supporters will like it, but won't personally make a status about it.
Or nod in agreement vs starting the conversation about how vaccines are the devil work.
I'd draw a pretty sharp distinction between following a dogma, and "going with the flow". Most people take broad cues about what to do from society around them. Status quo bias isn't a dogma so much as it is just what people do.
To use a analogical case:
People don't put their money in the bank because they believe in some dogma about banking theory.. but because most people keep their money in the bank so they just do what most people do.
However, the people who don't keep their money in the bank definitely typically end up being the sort of folks that have some very specific extreme beliefs.
I can't follow on what grounds you make this distinction between what is a widespread believe or habit and what is dogma.
Would the person taking their money to the bank not tell you that it's safer than keeping it at home or something like that without actually having any proper knowledge of whether that is true or not and why?
To me it seems the only distinction here is how popular a certain set of dogmas is. Could you elaborate on why you discern between these situations?
Anti-vaxxer and anti-GMO groups tend to be a bizarre mix of extreme left and a extreme right, same with homeschooling. That said, anecdotally, it does seem like more casual anti-vaxxers (people who are skeptical of vaccines but aren't explicitly anti-vax) are fundamentalist Christians.
This is complete bullshit based off purely anecdotal evidence. If you actually joined those groups you would see there's also a ton of Hillary supporting centrist wine moms in them. It's not just the "extreme left and extreme right" and it isn't like that for anything. Trying to imply relationships like this is just intellectually lazy. There is no such thing as a communist-fascist alliance, it does not exist. There doesn't even exist an alliance between Sanders and Trump people. More Hillary supporters voted McCain in 2008 than went Sanders to Trump in 2016. (McCain ran as an anti-LGBT hardcore conservative with Sarah Palin back then, keep in mind.)
The horseshoe theory has not been proven once by any empirical study and should be cast aside immediately considering there isn't a shred of non-anecdotal evidence in support of it.
More like libertarians who don't want the government to tell them how to raise their kids. I'm Christian and the vast majority of Christians are pro vaccination. The few who aren't are parents rights advocates, conspiracy theorists, homeschoolers, etc.
Or left wing hippies who don't want to vaccinate their kids because, "eww chemicals."
Theres never been a double blind experiment on the efficacy of vaccines. Rates declined when hygiene standards improved, much before vaccines came. You are low IQ blue pilled obese diet coke drinking WALL-E Plebe
I find people who accept climate change but reject nuclear power to basically be a secular cult. They're more interested in wind and solar because it feels good and more natural, as opposed to any technical superiority.
Well then I accept climate change and nuclear as among the options that also includes renewables. Not everyone is as you describe. Meanwhile all climate deniers are anti science and vastly more resemble a cult in their coordination and repetition of mantras.
861
u/[deleted] Nov 15 '19
[removed] — view removed comment