Report Blog Entry
I grew up with separated parents, a mother who doesn’t talk to me much about religion or even cares, but also a father who defines himself as anti-religious.
The guy didn’t talk to me about Jews that much. He mostly talked about Arabs in general and Islam, and ... his opinions on those. And although I manage to make the connection between his experiences and his beliefs about religions and their communities, I don’t like the problematic things he says about them and especially the tone he uses when talking about them.
Then, it’s random, but there’s this guy on social media that I discovered by randomness. Let’s be honest, I paid attention to his profile because this guy gosh IS BEAUTIFUL, he has these freckles all over his face, tanned skin that goes so well with it, and with his hazel eyes, and a redness on the bridge of his nose that I find so beautiful and that I myself like to have with a sunburnt on my nose in summer. Anyway.
And this guy is a Sephardic Jew. The content he publishes on socials is humor, deconstruction on various topics of society, current events, and his religion, Judaism. He explains his family’s traditions, does humour about them, etc.
And I’m kind of parasocial relationships and maladaptive daydreaming person. So, I already imagined this guy. And I love exploring the psychology as much of people I distrust, as of people I love and with whom I want to feel closer. And a religion is not just beliefs here and there, it is a philosophy of life, a set of values and a guide to life. Especially for a very religious person.
And what I realized from my scenarios is that there’s something about religions that repels me. And irl, when I come across videos (not those of this guy), in my algorithm, that talk about religion, for example, that talk about a passage from a sacred book, in another language, I literally feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. And I swipe quite quickly. I feel a kind of discomfort, a kind of unease.
And I’m afraid that it could be racism, anti-semitism, or some kind of internalized ideologies (and crime, by the way), which I really don’t want to have.
Especially I myself have my own world, my own spirituality. And I have no good reason to feel a dissonance + an unease such as facing people like me, who have their spirituality!
So the best way to detach myself from stupid things I learned from my father, and discover what religions are really like, their world, what they have to offer in terms of divinity, is to explore them. And I wanna start with Judaism.
I would always be happy to read your comments if you have so mething to say
Big kisses, ily
Comments
Displaying 5 of 5 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Crowbarluvver
Hi, I don’t really know how to direct you more than maybe start by reading the Torah but I wanted to mostly comment on how I acc appreciate your open minded-ness. I find it really refreshing when people try to take a step in whatever that makes them feel an uncomfortable way and fix it. I relate to your feeling and idk I just liked reading about someone else wanting to pick this discomfort out of their chest :)
xXLaced.with.flamezXx
No you are actually a pigeon living in New York City USA. You will die flying into a window.
StickmanClassic1996
Why are you asking us if you're "racist and intolerant"? If we told you that you weren't, why would you feel relief? If we told you that you were, why would you feel shame? You already feel the way you feel. Why would giving it a name make that feeling better or worse? And why would you care what other people thought?
xXXx_tearmeapart_xXXx
You're absolutely right that religion is a set of beliefs and moral philosophy that you have to follow. Someone that take their religion seriously and actually believe in it will not see it like a political ideology with points that you can choose to follow or not depending on how you feel about it, but the truth is that for most people that were raised with a religion, it's mostly a cultural thing that they don't take that much seriously and it's often the case for jews since you can't really convert to judaism.
If you want to learn more about judaism maybe read the tanakh (the old testament) and also don't take everything literally since a lot of it was written almost 3000 years ago
You could also learn about Jewish culture in general (food, music, history, traditions...)
I converted to catholicism recently so I'm kind of obsessed with abrahamic religions rn so if you have any question you can ask me
Also out of curiosity what's your spirituality? Is it some kind of paganism? Because that's usually what people that were raised atheist are into from what I've seen
Why are things from 3000 years ago not meant to be taken literally?
And if you believe that, why are you Catholic?
by StickmanClassic1996; ; Report
Well I say that because the Genesis is mostly metaphorical and a lot of atheists think that every christian take all of it literally (there were even Middle Age theologians that thought that the myth of creation was mostly allegorical). You must also take into account the cultural and historical context of the Old Testament to understand it properly. Btw the Bible also isn't considered the litteral word of God, but divinely inspired.
My point is that it IS divinely inspired, but that it was still written by ~40 different authors over a long period of time, thousand of years ago, so it's not surprising to see stuff like slavery or laws that would make absolutely no sense now, but that made complete sense back then in that specific context. That's why I tell atheists to not take all of it too seriously
by xXXx_tearmeapart_xXXx; ; Report
I'm still catholic because I believe that Jesus is my savior and that he died for all of our sins to rise the third day.
I also had many religious experiences that confirmed my beliefs and to not believe in God would be to deny what I saw and experienced in a direct way. I'm actually 100% convinced that catholicism is real right now
I also studied Church history, theology and scripture for a while and came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
If you have any other questions you can ask me
by xXXx_tearmeapart_xXXx; ; Report
Thanks.
What are some of these metaphors?
Who are some of these people who thought it was metaphorical?
What is this context, and why does it mean that the stories in the Bible are not true?
The beliefs you described are not limited to Catholics. Many different sects believe what you believe, not just Catholics. Do most Catholics believe that the Bible is filled with falsehoods and not literally true?
Why would God allow the book that's most associated with him to have things he doesn't support in it?
by StickmanClassic1996; ; Report
(I wrote a fucking long message with details explanation, but accidentally clicked cancel so here's a shorter one)
●What are some of these metaphors?
-myth of creation, Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve being the first ever humans...
●Who are some of these people who thought it was metaphorical?
St Augustine didn't believe in 6 literal day and Origen thought that it was inconceivable that the Genesis was literal
●What is this context, and why does it mean that the stories in the Bible are not true?
It's not that they're not true. Some books in the Bible are, prophetic, historical, poetic or allegorical. Allegorical doesn't mean that the story is false, but that it's not historical facts, but a story made to explain divine truth in a way that human could understand it at the time.
●The beliefs you described are not limited to Catholics. Many different sects believe what you believe, not just Catholics. Do most Catholics believe that the Bible is filled with falsehoods and not literally true?
The Church doesn't formally teaches that the Bible is filled with falsehood and not literally true. I can't talk for all Catholics, but I don't believe in that, but I believe that it's necessary to interpret the Old Testament with the right historical and cultural context to understand it properly
●Why would God allow the book that's most associated with him to have things he doesn't support in it?
Let's divide it in different kinds of false information.
Historical facts: most of them are believed to be true, but there are slight inaccuracies (mostly small details) which are due to copying mistakes that weren't edited to preserve the authenticity of the texts. Imo it would be ridiculous if God appeared in front of a scribe to tell him exactly how many horses did Solomon had.
Scientifically innacurate facts or superstitions: God probably figured out that humans would discover the truth later with the advancement of science and technology.
Morality: we can't actually know for sure what is "supported by God" in the Old Testament since from a secular point of view, morality is subjective and from a religious point of view, it is mostly decided by God. An important thing is to know the difference between the laws of the old covenant and the new covenant. New covenant laws are the teachings of Jesus that he transmitted to his apostles in the gospel. Old covenant laws were specifically designed for the children of israel and are not meant to be followed today and shouldn't be followed today because Jesus fulfilled the law. I genuinely believe that these laws were necessary for the Israelites at the time and that they needed a God that was generally more authoritarian and even violent to become a truly pious nation and that they wouldn't have understood an all loving God that forgive them of all their sins without any severe consequences
by xXXx_tearmeapart_xXXx; ; Report
●(I wrote a fucking long message with details explanation, but accidentally clicked cancel so here's a shorter one)
That blows man, sorry to hear.
●-myth of creation, Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve being the first ever humans...
What I should've asked is, "What are these metaphors, and what are they metaphors for?"
●-St Augustine didn't believe in 6 literal day and Origen thought that it was inconceivable that the Genesis was literal
As a Catholic, are you allowed to believe these things? I thought Origen was considered a heretic by Catholics.
●You must also take into account the cultural and historical context of the Old Testament to understand it properly
[ . . . . ]
My point is that it IS divinely inspired, but that it was still written by ~40 different authors over a long period of time, thousand of years ago, so it's not surprising to see stuff like slavery or laws that would make absolutely no sense now, but that made complete sense back then in that specific context. That's why I tell atheists to not take all of it too seriously
Why was it important to include these things in the Bible? Why did God include outdated information in his book?
●it's not historical facts, but a story made to explain divine truth in a way that human could understand it at the time.
Can you give an example of one of these stories, including what truth it imparts, and why it needed to be phrased in the way it was to be understood back then?
And since it's the only Bible we get and the canon is complete for all time (as far as I know), doesn't it beg the question: Why doesn't the Bible explain divine truth in a way that humans can understand it for ALL time? If that's impossible because of the nature of time, language, culture the mind, etc., then why does it have to be complete? Why couldn't there be further books added to the canon, until the end of time?
●The Church doesn't formally teaches that the Bible is filled with falsehood and not literally true. I can't talk for all Catholics, but I don't believe in that, but I believe that it's necessary to interpret the Old Testament with the right historical and cultural context to understand it properly
You literally do believe in it, because you literally said so:
"If you want to learn more about judaism maybe read the tanakh (the old testament) and also don't take everything literally since a lot of it was written almost 3000 years ago"
There seems to be some confusion, so let me put it this way instead: Do most Catholics believe Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and the "myth of creation" are false?
Before you respond: You may be getting hung up on my use of the word "false." You seem to think that when I ask you why you think that these Biblical stories are "false", I mean "bad", "without moral value", "inauthentic", etc. That is not what I mean. What I mean by "false" is "not literally true."
When I ask you why you think that the story of Noah's ark is "false", I am not accusing you of saying the story is bad, or that it doesn't reflect reality, or is immoral. What I mean is that you are saying it is a work of fiction, and not something that literally happened in history.
●Scientifically innacurate facts or superstitions: God probably figured out that humans would discover the truth later with the advancement of science and technology.
Why not just cut out the middleman and say only what was true to begin with? Why would a perfect being operate in this way? What all did God allow in the Bible even though it was wrong, because he thought we'd figure out it was untrue eventually? Why have a Bible at all, then?
●Morality: we can't actually know for sure what is "supported by God" in the Old Testament since from a secular point of view, morality is subjective and from a religious point of view, it is mostly decided by God.
What?
All of these other things aside, I do take issue with the general idea that the Bible is not meant to be taken as a work of history. There are obviously stories WITHIN the Bible that are not meant to be taken as historical fact, but as stories told to illustrate a point, like the Parable of the Talents. But we can easily recognize these as what they are, since they are narrated by characters within the Bible. This is not the case with Genesis, which is not narrated by a character within the Bible, but as if it is the record of a real historical event. The two types are very distinct.
by StickmanClassic1996; ; Report
Lapix
Why would that make you feel racist or antisemitic. This is not internalized racism. It's internalized self-hatred to even worry about such things