Native American Faith Traditions
As I don’t want to be perceived as talking over how Native Americans explain their own faith, here is Jicarilla Apache Philosopher V. F. Cordova’s explanation in her posthumously published book titled: “How It Is”, this book was a collection of her extensive notes that she had been working to turn into a book before her passing. V. F. Cordova had both a Masters and PhD in Philosophy from the University of New Mexico and used her background to explain Indigenous philosophies more clearly to English-speaking audiences:
Hinduism
For Hindus, to distinguish truth claims and improve our perceptions, we largely use the Pramana system but it differs in which ones are used for each philosophical school within Hinduism itself. Unfortunately, I had to learn this aspect of Hinduism late in my life since my experiences were just the Hindu priest at the local mandir that my family went to every Sunday simply eulogizing anecdotal stories of Gods and then having collective singing near the end. I’ve since had those misconceptions corrected thanks to harsh criticism from fellow Hindus and close friends who follow different faith traditions after embarrassing myself in a Youtube talk with Ex-Muslim atheists. To the best of my current knowledge, this would be the most correct approximation of what the main six Pramana systems consist of and mean:
- Pratyaksha —Eyewitness Account / Direct Perception
- Anumāna — Inference
- Upamāna — Analogy
- Arthāprapti — Deduction
- Anupalabdhi — Non-existence (the unlikelihood that something is possible)
- Shabda Pramāṇa — Scriptural evidence, or Background knowledge
Eyewitness account / Direct Perception usually matters the most in Hindu philosophical systems above the other proofs. Below is an example of how Samkhya summarized their reasoning for why the concept of Ishvara (God) is not valid using the Pramana system. Western so-called “Indologists” liken this to the Ancient Greek “Problem of Evil” and seem to completely miss what this is actually critiquing. Samkhya critiques the belief in a singular omnipotent God and the problems that arise from believing in such a notion:
That last epigram can be applied to the Islamic god, Allah. I would go so far that it could be applied to any supernatural claim and it’s a brilliant counter to them for any empiricist and it comes solely from Hindu philosophy. Now, I want to be clear, I apply it to Brahman and Ishvara too; there is obviously no evidence to support that they exist from an empirical standpoint. Also, while eyewitness accounts can be valid, it’s still true that our perceptions can be skewed and our judgments can be biased, and that’s why I would apply scientific evidence before even the Pramana system because it is the best means of reaching a clear and honest approximation of how the world actually exists. It also shouldn’t be seen as a binary choice between the two, since they can be used simultaneously. For example, our own eyewitness account of cells using tools like microscopes is the basis for understanding complex scientific topics like Biology and Microbiology. Similarly, NASA’s use of advanced telescopes to detect what blackholes do and ultraviolet satellite camera imagery from both Hubble and the James Webb Space Telescope for a more in-depth look into space beyond our limited human eyes (Note, a few of these James Webb Space Telescope images in the link are noted to be artistic reconstructions but most are real) so we have a better understanding of the universe in our own limited human capacity. I’d delve into how I apply this to modern neuroscientific and psychological findings which I’d argue validate my Hindu perspective.
For more context on the different schools based upon the Pramana logic systems of Hinduism, Wikipedia has a decent page giving more context and the findings of archaeology in India.
Endnotes
[1] Eknath, Easwaran, translator. Chapter Five: Renounce and Rejoice (122 – 130). The Bhagavad Gita. Nilgiri Press, 2007.
[2] Eknath, Easwaran, translator. Brihadaranyaka: The Forest of Wisdom (92-117) and Prashna: The Breath of Life (218-237). The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press, 2007.
[3] Datta, Jatindranath. Chapter 2: The Path of Knowledge (783 – 2219). Bhagavad Gita: With the commentary of Shankaracharya. Advaita Ashrama, 1984.
[4] Eknath, Easwaran, translator. Chapter Three: Selfless Service (93-103). The Bhagavad Gita. Nilgiri Press, 2007.
[5] Datta, Jatindranath. Chapter 2: The Path of Knowledge (783 – 2219). Bhagavad Gita: With the commentary of Shankaracharya. Advaita Ashrama, 1984.
[6] Eknath, Easwaran, translator. Chapter Three: Selfless Service (93-103). The Bhagavad Gita. Nilgiri Press, 2007.
[7] Datta, Jatindranath. Chapter 2: The Path of Knowledge (783 – 2219). Bhagavad Gita: With the commentary of Shankaracharya. Advaita Ashrama, 1984.
[8] Eknath, Easwaran, translator. Chapter Three: Selfless Service (93-103). The Bhagavad Gita. Nilgiri Press, 2007.
Buddhism
“The Four Aryan (or Noble) Truths are perhaps the most basic formulation of the Buddha’s teaching. They are expressed as follows:
- All existence is dukkha.The word dukkhahas been variously translated as ‘suffering’, ‘anguish’, ‘pain’, or ‘unsatisfactoriness’. The Buddha’s insight was that our lives are a struggle, and we do not find ultimate happiness or satisfaction in anything we experience. This is the problem of existence.
- The cause of dukkha is craving.The natural human tendency is to blame our difficulties on things outside ourselves. But the Buddha says that their actual root is to be found in the mind itself. In particular our tendency to grasp at things (or alternatively to push them away) places us fundamentally at odds with the way life really is.
- The cessation of dukkha comes with the cessation of craving.As we are the ultimate cause of our difficulties, we are also the solution. We cannot change the things that happen to us, but we can change our responses.
-
There is a path that leads from dukkha.Although the Buddha throws responsibility back on to the individual he also taught methods through which we can change ourselves, for example the Noble Eightfold Path.” – The Buddhist Centre, The Four Noble Truths.
The Eightfold Path
“The Buddha laid down the eightfold path for his followers and enunciated that by following this path, they could put an end to their suffering.
Directly related to the Four Noble Truths, the eightfold path, as laid down by Buddha, helps an individual attain the state of Nirvana by freeing him from attachments and delusions and thereby helping him understand the innate truth of all things. This path, therefore, helps a person with his ethical and mental growth and development.
Buddha laid great emphasis on implementing the teachings since a higher level or existence can be attained only by putting translating thoughts into actions.
The eightfold path suggested by Buddha involves adherence to:
- The Right View
By right view, Buddha means seeing things in the right perspective. Seeing things as they really are, without any false illusions or pretenses. He wanted his followers to see and to understand the transient nature of worldly ideas and possessions and to understand that they can attain salvation only if they practiced the right karma.
- The Right Thought
Buddha says that we are what we are because of what we think. What goes on inside our minds (our thought process) determines our course of action. It is, therefore, necessary to follow the path of Right thought or Right Intention. To have the Right Intention or the Right Thought, a person should be aware of his purpose or role in life and is studying the teachings of Buddha.
- The Right Speech
Buddha asks his followers to speak truth, to avoid slander and malicious gossip and to refrain from abusive language. Harsh words that can cause distress or offend others should also be avoided while also staying clear of mindless idle chatter which lacks any depth.
- The Right Action
Behaving peacefully and harmoniously; Right action, according to Buddha, lies in adherence to the following guidelines:
– Staying in harmony with fellow human beings
– Behaving peacefully
– Not stealing
– Not killing anyone
– Avoiding overindulgence in sensual pleasure
– Abstaining from sexual misconduct
– Not indulging in fraudulent practices, deceitfulness and robbery
- The Right Livelihood
By laying down this guideline, Buddha advises his followers to earn their bread and butter righteously, without resorting to illegal and nefarious activities. He does not expect his followers to exploit other human beings or animals or to trade in weapons or intoxicants.
- The Right Effort
Buddha believed that human nature imposes undue restrictions on the mind at times, causing a person to harbor ill thoughts. So we have to train our mind to think in the right direction if we wish to become better human beings. Once we gain control over our thoughts and replace the unpleasant ones with positive ones, we shall be moving in the right direction.
- The Right Mindfulness
The Right Mindfulness, together with the Right Concentration, forms the basis of Buddhist meditation. By proposing this, Buddha suggests his followers to focus mentally on their emotions, mental faculties, and capabilities while staying away from worldly desires and other distractions.
It refers to the ability of the mind to see things as they are without being led astray by greed, avarice, anger and ignorance.
- The Right Concentration
This eighth principle laid down by Buddha is fundamental for proper meditation. . . . Needless to add, this is the most vital of all the aspects stated in the Noble Eightfold path since, without proper meditation, an individual cannot move on to a higher level of well-being.” – Zen-Buddhism.net, The Eightfold path, From: http://www.zen-buddhism.net/buddhist-principles/eightfold-path.html.
Theravada and Mahayana
It’s most effective to evaluate the major split in Buddhism by acknowledging the differences and then evaluating each of the Mahayana school’s drawbacks separately from each other. This serves two purposes; the first is to give a clearer distinction to practitioners of Buddhism and aspiring Buddhists about each denominations faults for those who don’t know about the different schools of thought; second, to give a brief examination of the history before going into the critiques for those who are entirely unfamiliar with Buddhism and who make spurious generalizations without any understanding of the two major schools of thought.
The website Buddhanet.net, a Buddhist educational website, gives a concise history on the two branching schools and the differences among the subsets of Mahayana Buddhism:
“The two major schools of Buddhism, Theravada and the Mahayana, are to be understood as different expressions of the same teaching of the historical Buddha. Because, in fact, they agree upon and practice the core teachings of the Buddha’s Dharma. And while there was a schism after the first council on the death of the Buddha, it was largely over the monastic rules and academic points such as whether an enlightened person could lapse or not. Time, culture and customs in the countries in Asia which adopted the Buddha-dharma have more to do with the apparent differences, as you will not find any animosity between the two major schools, other than that created by healthy debate on the expression of and the implementation of the Buddha’s Teachings.
Theravada (The Teachings of the Elders)
In the Buddhist countries of southern Asia, there never arose any serious differences on the fundamentals of Buddhism. All these countries – Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand, have accepted the principles of the Theravada school and any differences there might be between the various schools is restricted to minor matters.
The earliest available teachings of the Buddha are to be found in Pali literature and belongs to the school of the Theravadins, who may be called the most orthodox school of Buddhism. This school admits the human characteristics of the Buddha, and is characterised by a psychological understanding of human nature; and emphasises a meditative approach to the transformation of consciousness.
The teaching of the Buddha according to this school is very plain. He asks us to ‘abstain from all kinds of evil, to accumulate all that is good and to purify our mind’. These can be accomplished by The Three Trainings: the development of ethical conduct, meditation and insight-wisdom.
The philosophy of this school is straight forward. All worldly phenomena are subject to three characteristics – they are impermanent and transient; unsatisfactory and that there is nothing in them which can be called one’s own, nothing substantial, nothing permanent. All compounded things are made up of two elements – the non-material part, the material part. They are further described as consisting of nothing but five constituent groups, namely the material quality, and the four non-material qualities – sensations, perception, mental formatives and lastly consciousness.
When an individual thus understands the true nature of things, she/he finds nothing substantial in the world. Through this understanding, there is neither indulgence in the pleasures of senses or self-mortification, following the Middle Path the practitioner lives according to the Noble Eightfold Path which consist of Right View, Right Resolve, Right Speech, Right Actions, Right Occupation, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. She/he realises that all worldly suffering is caused by craving and that it is possible to bring suffering to an end by following the Noble Eight Fold Path. When that perfected state of insight is reached, i.e.Nibanna, that person is a ‘worthy person’ an Arhat. The life of the Arhat is the ideal of the followers of this school, ‘a life where all (future) birth is at an end, where the holy life is fully achieved, where all that has to be done has been done, and there is no more returning to the worldly life’.
Mahayana (The Great Vehicle)
The Mahayana is more of an umbrella body for a great variety of schools, from the Tantra school (the secret teaching of Yoga) well represented in Tibet and Nepal to the Pure Land sect, whose essential teaching is that salvation can be attained only through absolute trust in the saving power of Amitabha, longing to be reborn in his paradise through his grace, which are found in China, Korea and Japan. Ch’an and Zen Buddhism, of China and Japan, are meditation schools. According to these schools, to look inward and not to look outwards is the only way to achieve enlightenment, which to the human mind is ultimately the same as Buddhahood. In this system, the emphasis is upon ‘intuition’, its peculiarity being that it has no words in which to express itself at all, so it does this in symbols and images. In the course of time this system developed its philosophy of intuition to such a degree that it remains unique to this day.
It is generally accepted, that what we know today as the Mahayana arose from the Mahasanghikas sect who were the earliest seceders, and the forerunners of the Mahayana. They took up the cause of their new sect with zeal and enthusiasm and in a few decades grew remarkably in power and popularity. They adapted the existing monastic rules and thus revolutionised the Buddhist Order of Monks. Moreover, they made alterations in the arrangements and interpretation of the Sutra (Discourses) and the Vinaya (Rules) texts. And they rejected certain portions of the canon which had been accepted in the First Council.
According to it, the Buddhas are lokottara (supramundane) and are connected only externally with the worldly life. This conception of the Buddha contributed much to the growth of the Mahayana philosophy.
Mahayana Buddhism is divided into two systems of thought: the Madhyamika and the Yogacara. The Madhyamikas were so called on account of the emphasis they laid on the middle view. Here, the middle path, stands for the non-acceptance of the two views concerning existence and nonexistence, eternity and non eternity, self and non-self. In short, it advocates neither the theory of reality nor that of the unreality of the world, but merely of relativity. It is, however, to be noted that the Middle Path propounded at Sarnath by the Buddha had an ethical meaning, while that of the Madhyamikas is a metaphysical concept.
The Yogacara School is another important branch of the Mahayana. It was so called because it emphasised the practice of yoga (meditation) as the most effective method for the attainment of the highest truth (Bodhi). All the ten stages of spiritual progress of Bodhisattvahood have to be passed through before Bodhi can be attained. The ideal of the Mahayana school, therefore, is that of the Bodhisattva, a person who delays his or her own enlightenment in order to compassionately assist all other beings and ultimately attains to the highest Bodhi.”
As Theravada comprises of the main teachings of Buddhism and Mahayana comprises either the Theravada teachings with additions in supernatural belief systems or a new interpretation of the Theravada teachings that is formulated into new supernatural belief systems of Buddhism, the first critique will focus on the Mahayana school and each denominations’ specific drawbacks. After that, there’ll be more focus on Theravada and my main contentions to Buddhism.
Judaism
I’ve mainly read Jewish scholars like psychologists, Sociologists, and Anthropologists outside of reading Jewish theology about Kabbalah, Biblical archaeology is what I spent more time on, or specific parts about Jewish theology from My Jewish Learning, so I decided to just use AI to supplement this one because I didn’t have a firm grasp of its internal logic and if anyone wants to correct this AI search finding, feel free:
Jewish epistemology—the study of how knowledge, truth, and faith are understood within Jewish tradition—generally splits into major schools of thought balancing collective memory, rational inquiry, tradition, and mysticism. [1, 2, 3]
- The Rationalist School
- Core Approach: Asserts that theological truths, moral laws, and metaphysical realities can or should align with human reason, logic, and scientific study. [1, 2]
- Key Figures: Maimonides (Rambam), Sa’adya Gaon, Moses Mendelssohn, and Hermann Cohen. [1, 2]
- Epistemic Foundation: Maimonides argued that intellectual preparation—through logic, physics, and metaphysics—is a prerequisite for understanding revelation and prophecy. Reason does not contradict divine truth; rather, apparent contradictions in scripture require philosophical interpretation or allegorical reading. Sa’adya Gaon integrated speculative reason (Kalam) with inherited tradition, holding that a genuinely irrational dogma cannot be true revelation. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The Traditionalist / Anti-Rationalist School (Testimony & Collective Memory)
- Core Approach: Rejects abstract philosophical speculation as the primary path to religious truth, emphasizing instead historical testimony, communal transmission, and covenantal experience. [1, 2]
- Key Figures: Judah HaLevi (author of the Kuzari), Salomon Levi Steinheim. [1, 2]
- Epistemic Foundation (The Kuzari Principle): Grounded in the idea that knowledge is anchored in public, national historical events (such as the Revelation at Sinai) passed down through an unbroken chain of collective memory. Unlike Western philosophical foundationalism (which seeks individual Cartesian proof like “I think, therefore I am”), Jewish traditionalist epistemology relies on corporate, intergenerational testimony (emunah moving toward deep experiential knowledge or da’at). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- The Mystical / Kabbalistic School
- Core Approach: Views language, text, and creation itself as an epistemic web where divine wisdom is encoded in the very structure of the Hebrew alphabet and esoteric reality. [1]
- Key Figures: The Kabbalistic tradition, Isaac Luria, and later influences in Hasidic thought (such as the Baal Shem Tov). [1, 2]
- Epistemic Foundation: Knowledge is not merely propositional (believing a set of facts), nor is it purely cold Aristotelian logic; it is a form of direct inner acquaintance (da’at) or intimate union with the divine flow (shefa / emanation). The letters of the Hebrew Torah are treated as active building blocks and cognitive pathways of creation rather than passive historical records. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Modern Existential and Post-Rational Syntheses
- Core Approach: Focuses on the human-divine encounter, ethical correlation, and personal/communal dialogical experience in the wake of modern philosophy.
- Key Figures: Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, and contemporary Jewish philosophers.
- Epistemic Foundation: Shifts away from trying to “prove” God via medieval physics or pure history, focusing instead on the “I-Thou” relationship, where truth is revealed in immediate presence, moral responsibility, and living engagement with tradition. [1, 2]
Would you like to explore a specific figure (like Maimonides or Judah HaLevi) or examine how the transition from emunah (faith) to da’at (intimate knowledge) works in more detail?
For more, My Jewish Learning provides useful context for Jewish traditions:
My own critique of Biblical archaeological findings.
Must a Jew Believe in God? by Daniel Septimus
Is Forgiveness Necessary? by Rabbi David J. Blumenthal
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall by Rabbi Dr. Jill Hammer
Christianity
The Abrahamic god, Yahweh, teaches an exclusive moral system of “Objective” moral values of right and wrong, but you pick and choose via open interpretation. That’s fundamentally a self-contradicting moral system where everyone creates their own ideas and pretends it makes sense. You’re all claiming morality is objective, good and evil are objective, and that your actions follow a logical consistency but you openly interpret, pick and choose, and decide based on your own self-serving standards of what is objective moral values through your own subjective moral interpretation. It’s a complete self-contradiction in moral terms that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Furthermore, Christian theology is set-up with two extremist propositions from Original Sin and Jesus’s Doctrine of Forgiveness:
- Everyone is born sinful and thus either cannot help their violent and destructive impulses or has a high degree of “tendencies” towards violent, destructive impulses.
- All your violent, destructive impulses in harming other people is forgivable because you believe in Jesus Christ. In other words, you can beat, torture, kill, or rape anybody you want and all you have to do is seek Jesus’s forgiveness to be forgiven. The victim you hurt doesn’t matter, the families of the victims that you hurt also don’t matter.
To top it off, Repentance just means that you accept Jesus Christ into your heart, but he can constantly forgive you of sins you still commit. That’s how the Christian billionaires likely interpret his teachings, that’s definitely how Catholic priests interpret it due to their adamant defense of the Seal of Confession, and it is an openly interpretable point of contention within Christian theology regardless.
Finally, the problem of personal immortality as Friedrich Nietzsche argued. The belief in personal immortality leads to the most narcissistic and selfish outcomes within human behavior. If you believe in any supernatural concept of eternal life or heaven, then you can justify any atrocity committed on innocent people and innocent people – including children –are always suffering and dying because of it. This applies to any religion that teaches to believe in a soul. When an IDF soldier kills a Palestinian child, they can interpret their Jewish faith to mean that if the child is truly innocent, then they’ll return on the End of Days, a pedophile Christian priest who rapes and kills a child can ask for Jesus’s forgiveness and believe that nobody but Jesus Christ has the right to judge him and the same could be said for Christian Kabbalist billionaires who protected experiments upon underage children conducted by Jeffrey Epstein, and an Islamist who rapes and kills a child in Britain could believe that child will return on the Day of Resurrection. I don’t make excuses for the supernatural beliefs in my own religion; a Hindu who believes Purusha’s terms are more in line with “soul” than with “consciousness” could kill an innocent person and believe that person will be unified with Brahman and on and on. The problem is precisely the beliefs in eternal life, the soul, and all forms of immortality beyond death being perceived as real, instead of a delusion that causes harm to innocent people, especially innocent children.
Think about the circular logic of Christianity too. Christian Zionists may justify the bombing of Christians in Lebanon by Israel on the basis of the fulfillment of the prophecies of Ezekiel, but please think about what that actually means. Christian Zionists have interpreted the Bible to mean that the State of Israel has a Biblical mandate to slaughter Christians and that the Abrahamic God approves of it based on the plain reading of the Book of Ezekiel’s prophecies.
Do you believe that your God commanding the genocide of innocent people, including Christians, means that the genocide is fine – especially if you think those Christians who get slaughtered by Israel like in Beirut, Lebanon – will go to heaven regardless since Christianity teaches you that this life is a test? Do you believe in loving Jesus Christ more than loving your own children, as your Christian theology teaches you?
Divine Command Theory in the Book of Ezekiel calls for mass genocide of the Philistines, that name in modern times translates to the Palestinians and it’s for the purpose of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Under your religion’s theology, the genocide of Gaza isn’t wrong because your God commands it in the Book of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 25. So, is the genocide of Gaza and massacres in Lebanon good, because YHWH – your God – orders it in the Book of Ezekiel to establish Greater Judea so that Jesus Christ’s Second Coming can happen? Read your Bible if you think I’m lying to you.
Biblical Verses that justify the genocide of Gaza by removing the Palestinians so Jewish Settlers can take their land: (Jeremiah 16:14–15, 23:3, 23:7–8, 29:10, 29:14; 31:7–8), Ezra 1:1, Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 43:5–6, Isaiah 49:22–26, Isaiah 60:8–12, Ezekiel 28:25, Ezekiel 36:22–23, Psalm 102:13, Psalm 102:16–22, Ezekiel 37:26–27, Revelation 21:3, Isaiah 66:20.
Consider other Biblical teachings too:
Why does Yahweh Approve of Incest for his Chosen People whether Jewish or Christian? Genesis 20:12, Genesis 17:16, Exodus 6:20, Genesis 19:30-36, and 2 Peter 2:7-8.
Why Does Yahweh Approve of Human Sacrifice? Genesis 22:2, Exodus 22:29, Leviticus 27:28-29, Numbers 31:25-40, Judges 11:29-40, 2 Samuel 21:1, 2 Samuel 21: 8-14, 1 Kings 13:1-2, 2 Kings 23:30, 2 Chronicles 34:1-5, 1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Peter 1:18-19, Hebrew 9:13-22, and Hebrews 10:10.
How about where Yahweh of the Bible condones and commands murder and genocide? (Genesis 7:18–23, Exodus 12:29, Exodus 32:27–29, Deuteronomy 13:6-11, Numbers 31:17)
Murder and abuse of children? (2 Samuel 12:15-18, 2 Kings 2:23-24)
How about pedophilia, incest, and rape? (Genesis 3:20, Genesis 19:8 and 19:36, Judges 19: 23-29, Numbers 31:17-18, 2 Peter 2:7-8(in reference to Lot offering his daughters in Genesis 19:8), Deuteronomy 22:28-29(a raped virgin must marry her rapist)
How about slavery? (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:7, 1Peter 2:18, Exodus 21:20-21)
Gratuitous torture? (Revelation 9:5-6, Revelation 20:10-15)
Cruel indifference towards animal suffering? (Joshua 11:6, Genesis 7:18-23)
Theft and destruction? (Deuteronomy 20:13-14, Luke 19:30-35)
Lying, and making other people lie? (Genesis 22:2, Genesis 8:21, 2Peter 3:10-11[contradicting god’s promise in Gen. 8:21, to never again destroy the Earth], Ezekiel 14:9[Where god deliberately deceives a prophet], 1Kings 22:23, 2Thessalonians 2:11)
Betrayal? (Hebrews 10:9-10, Exodus 10:1, 1Peter 5:8[where the Bible god betrays all of humanity by allowing Satan to roam about the earth])
Discrimination and Hatred of Women? Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5: 21-33, Colossians 3:16-25, 1 Timothy 2: 11-15, 1 Corinthians 14:33 – 40, 1 Peter 3: 3-7, Psalm 127:3, 1 Corinthians 7:34 – 40.
Beating Children? Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 23:13, and Proverbs 29:15
Jesus Christ’s Anti-Jewish Hatred? (John 5:1-18, John 6:52, John 7:11, John 8:21 – 44, John 9:18-23, Matthew 27:24 – 25, 1 Thessalonians 14-16, Acts 3:13-15, Acts 13:44-50, Acts 18: 5-6, and Acts 28: 23-28).
Mythological Creatures in the Bible:
Sea monsters/leviathans (Job 3:8, Amos 9:3, Psalm 74:13–23, Psalm 104:26, Isaiah 27:1)
Dragons (Job 40:15-24, Revelation 12)
Giants (Genesis 6:4)
Cockatrice (Isaiah 11:8, 14:29, 59:5; Jeremiah 8:17; Proverbs 23:32)
Satyr (Isaiah 13:21)
Talking Donkey (Numbers 22)
Unicorns (Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6; Isaiah 34:7)
Jesus Christ’s resurrection is a zombie apocalypse with Saints Walking out of their graves to tell others that Jesus Christ resurrected (Matthew 27:51-53)
Biblical Verses that justify the genocide of Gaza by removing the Palestinians so Jewish Settlers can take their land: (Jeremiah 16:14–15, 23:3, 23:7–8, 29:10, 29:14; 31:7–8), Ezra 1:1, Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 43:5–6, Isaiah 49:22–26, Isaiah 60:8–12, Ezekiel 28:25, Ezekiel 36:22–23, Psalm 102:13, Psalm 102:16–22, Ezekiel 37:26–27, Revelation 21:3, Isaiah 66:20.
Isaiah 14:12 refers to Satan as Morning Star and Revelation 22:16 has Jesus referring to himself as the Morning Star.
No thought for Raiment: Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:28.
I don’t even understand the “New Testament God is peaceful” arguments anymore, because the Book of Revelation uses verbiage like “the Wrath of God” or the “Fury of God” depending upon the translation in Revelation 14 before seven plagues sent by the seven angels in Revelation 15. The whole idea of the New Testament God being peaceful evaporates when reading the Book of Revelation, since he commands angels to poison the land, mass slaughter people, and then justifies the threat of more slaughter as suffering his wrath and then sends non-Christians to die in eternal suffering in the “Second Death” within the Book of Revelation’s entirety. Even Epstein’s global pedophile cabal could arguably be extrapolated from these two Books of Ezekiel as a legitimate interpretation of Biblical Prophecy:
Ezekiel Chapter 16 and Ezekiel Chapter 23. Honestly? Ezekiel reads like a 500 BCE pedophile who is ranting that his child bride ran away and if you use interpretations like descriptions of breasts to mean that it alludes to real girls, then Epstein and other Jewish and Christian Zionists using “open interpretation” or specifically “interpretation through allusions” of such passages to justify a global pedophile cabal.
In summa, both the concept of Open Interpretation of Scripture and Jesus Christ’s doctrine of forgiveness is in violation of the belief in Objective Moral Values. In the first one, you’re using subjective moral values and claiming an Objective Creator conveniently agrees with your subjective moral interpretations. In the second, Jesus forgives you of all sins and Repentance just means accepting Jesus into your heart, therefore since he forgives you of all sins… you can commit whatever sins you want upon others and Jesus forgives you. It’s an immoral religious system.
For more context, I give further critiques here and my own advice on how to debate Christian Missionaries.
Islam
Please keep these Key Terms in mind, they are how Muslims themselves define it:
Definitions by the Brookings Institute to explain Islamic Extremism:
Islamism: “Islamism as a phenomenon incorporates a wide spectrum of behavior and belief. In the broadest sense, Islamist groups believe Islamic law or Islamic values should play a central role in public life. They feel Islam has things to say about how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how other people—not just themselves—should conduct themselves morally.”[1]
Mainstream Islamism: “Mainstream Islamist groups primarily consist of Muslim Brotherhood and Brotherhood-inspired movements. Their distinguishing features are their gradualism (historically eschewing revolution), an embrace of parliamentary politics, and a willingness to work within existing state structures, even secular ones.”[2]
Salafism: “Salafism is the idea that the most authentic and true Islam is found in the lived example of the early, righteous generations of Muslims, known as the Salaf, who were closest in both time and proximity to the Prophet Muhammad. Salafis—often described as “ultraconservatives”—believe not just in the “spirit” but in the “letter” of the law, which is what sets them apart from their mainstream counterparts. In the Arab world today, Salafis are known for trying to imitate the particular habits of the first Muslims, such as dressing like the Prophet (by cuffing their trousers at ankle-length) or brushing their teeth like the Prophet (with a natural teeth cleaning twig called a miswak).”[3]
Jihadism: “Jihadism is driven by the idea that jihad (religiously-sanctioned warfare) is an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn) incumbent upon all Muslims, rather than a collective obligation carried out by legitimate representatives of the Muslim community (fard kifaya), as it was traditionally understood in the pre-modern era. They are able to do this by arguing that Muslim leaders today are illegitimate and do not command the authority to ordain justified violence. In the absence of such authority, they argue, every able-bodied Muslim should take up the mantle of jihad. Contrast this state of affairs with World War I, when the Kaiser himself had to sweet talk the Ottoman caliphate into declaring jihad against the Allied Powers.”
Salafi-Jihadism: “This is an approach to jihadism that is coupled with an adherence to Salafism. Salafi-jihadists tend to emphasize the military exploits of the Salaf (the early generations of Muslims) to give their violence an even more immediate divine imperative. Most jihadist groups today can be classified as Salafi-jihadists, including al-Qaida and ISIS. Given their exclusivist view that their approach to Islam is the only authentic one, Salafi-jihadists often justify violence against other Muslims, including non-combatants, by recourse to takfir, or the excommunication of fellow Muslims. For these groups, if Muslims have been deemed to be apostates, then violence against them is licit.”[4]
[4] Hamid, Shadi, and Rashid Dar. “Islamism, Salafism, and Jihadism: A Primer.” Brookings, The Brookings Institution, 15 July 2016, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/islamism-salafism-and-jihadism-a-primer/.
The doctrinal problem within Islam that makes it so dangerous, that many in democratic countries either don’t know or don’t want to admit, is the theological underpinnings of its consistency. Human beings have cognitive dissonance, we can often be hypocrites, and we often ignore what is inconvenient to acknowledge; but I would argue that the reason for the prevalence of Islamic violence in an order of magnitude higher than other faith traditions in modern times is because as a system, it really does try to be the most consistent theology that humanity has so far ever created. Please understand, this is to its detriment and not something that we should honor or support. The lack of hypocrisy is why the violence is so prevalent, because it really does value the afterlife more than the material world and that is precisely why this religion can commit such wanton destruction upon “materialism” and non-Muslims who are “deceiving” Muslims away from spiritual commitments to their faith. Within the context of Islam’s theology under the Tafsir system (PDF), you have to accept the Quran as the unalterable word of the Abrahamic God. The Sharia, while analogous to a leading people to a watering hole in its literal meaning, actually means the “Divine Law” and refers to the Abrahamic God’s Divine Law. Regardless of if you name the Abrahamic God Yahweh or Allah or how uncomfortable Christians feel acknowledging this, it is the God of Abraham that Muslims worship. The Islamic jurisprudence system is based upon the notion of unquestionable fact that every follower, and often those subjugated by Muslims as a lesser social status, have to accept because it was given by the Abrahamic God and Muslims believe that following the teachings of Islam leads to heaven for eternity. The process within Islam is more systematic than other major religions. The Tafsir system has a holistic structure whereby the Quran must be accepted as unquestionable fact, and if the Quran doesn’t answer a question, then the Prophet Mohammad’s lived example (the Sunnah) serves as absolute fact that followers must adhere to, and if that’s not satisfactory then the companions of the Prophet Mohammad serve as an example of how to behave. If they also do not answer the questions that society has on how to deal with a new social issue, then the lived experiences of the first Muslims are used as an example to follow. If all of those fail to answer a question, then Muslim priests – who are viewed more as “Islamic Scholars” by Muslims due to the perception of learned scholarship in Islam – must find an appropriate Hadith that has a chain of narration verified by Islamic “scholars” to have been said by the Prophet Mohammad himself to give as a lived example that followers must adhere to. And if all that is exhausted, then an Islamic “scholar” (an Islamic “scholar” is generally called a “Faqih” which can arguably be any Imam) gives an “ijtihad” or “independent opinion” within the context of following Sharia (The Divine Law of the Abrahamic God). That is, they interpret all of what the Quran, Prophet Mohammad, the companions of the Prophet, and the first Muslims said or did to form a correct assessment of how they would view a specific modern question that couldn’t be answered. This is what is called a Fiqh and while an “opinion”, it can be seen as authoritative. Furthermore, no new ideas or concepts can be added because it is “bid’ah” and thus forbidden in Islamic jurisprudence. From what I could find, bid’ah is supported within the Quran itself in Chapter 2, verses 11-17 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, 10). It is important to note that this system includes the Naskh which means “abrogation” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) and refers to Islamic jurisprudence’s “Theory of Abrogation” for the Quran; in brief, latter verses within the Quran can abrogate prior verses of the Quran as a legal system that Muslims and those they conquer must follow. Imams, Sheiks, and Faqihs may even use allegory to interpret the Quranic text to best fit an answer to a question regarding a modern problem, but it has to be understood within the context of accepting the Quran as absolute fact that cannot be questioned. Finally, the four types of Jihad that Muslims must adhere to on a daily basis to stay consistent with Islamic teachings. For this part, it might be best to simply quote the concisely put teachings of the Islam Questions and Answers website made by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (PDF) which explains as follows:
Note, Islam literally translates to “the submission” and thus submission is considered a good act in service of the Abrahamic God. Moreover, many Muslims in the West will constantly say that any random Imam who is not their preferred Imam is not a “real Imam” and therefore not following the “real Islam” but this is just willful ignorance to the problems underscoring their theology, whereby they attempt to ignore the holistic issues that are intrinsic to their faith tradition. These are simply attempts, often successful attempts, to shut down logical arguments about the problems of their faith tradition failing to comport to modern times. They ignore the mass murder of civilians by focusing instead on how it makes them feel to hear such painful truths about their theology and to ignore the spread of violence that harms innocent people across the world. Their personal preference and subjective experience are immaterial to logical consequences of this theology and the facts regarding how many innocent non-Muslims and Muslims are repeatedly killed by it.
Finally, the issue of purity culture that is unique to the theology of Islam. Islam teaches people to believe that everyone is born pure as a Muslim (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) but deceived away from Islam due to satanism in the world. That is, they believe every child born is automatically a Muslim and when they follow faith traditions or belief structures outside of Islam, then they have been deceived by Satan away from Islam. In other words, a child born into a Jewish, Christian, or Hindu family is “deceived away” from Islam despite generations of families worshipping those other faith traditions. So, when someone commits the “heinous act” of Quran 4:89 (1, 2), of rejecting the faith of Islam, then they need to be murdered to keep the community “pure” and safe from “infidel” ideas that are viewed as being corrupted by devil worship and would cause people to burn in eternal hellfire in hell, if Muslims allow such beliefs to spread. The endgoal of all of this is to accept the Quran as the perfect book to live by to solve all human problems and to live by the standards of the 7th century AD to await the coming of Jesus Christ (1, 2 and 1, 2, 3) after the Mahdi brings the true believers to Jesus Christ. For those who are confused, Islam teaches that it is the true religion of the prophet Abraham and the Messiah of Islam is Jesus Christ (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 +1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 + Quranic verses: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 + PDF). The Mahdi, that is the Guided One, brings true Muslims together, while the Anti-Messiah (likely based upon the original Jewish concept of Anti-Messiah more than the latter Christian variant of the Anti-Christ) deceives people away from the real Islam. The Mahdi then apparently slaughters all the polytheists for deceiving Muslims and fights the Anti-Messiah until the Islamic Jesus Christ appears behind him and then helps him slay the Anti-Messiah and Satan. The Mahdi then “pauses time” for either “seven years”, “nine years”, or a vague amount of years (the hadiths are deliberately vague) and rules a “glorious” Islamic Caliphate and then passes away to allow Jesus Christ to rule the world eternally from then on (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). All of this is as foretold and instructed by the Prophet Mohammad. This is what Islamic Jihadists like the Salafists slaughter innocent people and fly planes into buildings for. I could go into details on the ridiculous nature of Islamic heaven, but I think you already get the general idea of why this theology has so many problems. Islamist political activists and Islamic terrorist groups really do want to destroy all forms of materialism and social concepts: modern medicine, the destruction of all history and culture of unconquered lands, the erasure of all other forms of philosophical thought outside Islam, and the erasure of all human advancements and scientific advancements beyond the 7th century. It is because the 7th century is considered the endpoint and perfect civilization due to being the time period of the Prophet Mohammad’s rule; the Quran is supposed to answer all of life’s problems for humanity within Islamic theology. That really is the worldview and outcome that they are forcing upon us. The systemic problem with Islam is never going to go away by seeking to reform the religion because there’ll always be a return to tradition movement like Wahhabism and Salafism, any deviation will be seen as “bid’ah” and seen as adding devil worship to the faith tradition, and terms like Islamophobia continue to prevent peaceful Free Speech discussions that could save lives by de-converting people away from Islam.
What this religion amounts to is Divine Command Theory on figurative steroids to the extent that the Tafsir system of Islamic jurisprudence tries to thoroughly remove all forms of outside logic and thought or otherwise attempts to squeeze it into the acceptability of the standards of the 7th century during the Prophet Mohammad’s time. The Tafsir system really is a legal system founded on the ideas of revealed wisdom and divine command theory with Muslims having absolute faith in it because they believe it comes from the Abrahamic God. This is also why I doubt Christianity can come-up with any real argument against Islam, because most Christians still follow the system of divine command theory as the basis for their moral judgments. Many US Christian pastors and priests make false aspersions upon Muslims with claims like Allah is somehow the devil (the age-old narcissism of Christianity whereby any disagreeable viewpoint is labeled as a temptation of the devil), or that Jesus was only seen as a good teacher or just a prophet (which is not the full truth, Jesus is the Messiah of Islam), and essentially do everything in their power to dehumanize Muslims without actually giving a valid critique because they don’t even try to understand Islamic theology before denouncing it. It would be incredibly uncomfortable to acknowledge how much more literalist Islam is in accepting Divine Command theory compared to Christianity’s open interpretation system. It’s an argument that Christianity cannot win, because Christianity also predicates itself upon divine command theory. In a very real way, the failings of Christianity act as a shield to protect Islam’s most dangerous beliefs. Christian conservatives often confuse the theology that Muslims are advocating for as Marxist or Socialist as a result, because they’re unfamiliar with the very real and dangerous belief in Islam that the 7th century needs to be the endpoint of civilization to prepare the way for the Mahdi and Jesus Christ to save the true Muslims from the Anti-Messiah and Satan. This is not some figurative or interpretative belief; the majority of Muslims believe this to be a literal event that will happen with absolute certainty. It’s not Socialist or Marxist, it’s a purely Abrahamic belief that Muslims are espousing and which Christians have no legitimate ability to criticize within the worldview of their own faith tradition.
As a Hindu and an Atheist, my perspective would be to look at Islam as a system and judge it that way. To the best of my knowledge, if the Quran references other material, then it is bizarre that the ideology claims the Quran can solve all of life’s questions. The Tafsir legal system seems to be a self-contradiction to the Quran’s claims of being the perfect book to answer all of life’s problems to me. My reasoning is thus: the Tafsir system, the Sunnah (especially in the Shafi’i school of Islam) and Hadiths essentially disprove the idea that the Quran is the perfect book for all people to live by; since they need the concept of the Tafsir system itself, the Hadiths as supplementary material, the Sunnah as an explanation of ritual and traditions, and cultural movements of return to faith traditions from Wahhabism and Salafism to stay consistent with it. Why, for example, do the Hadiths need a grading system of saheeh (Sound), Hasan (good), Daif (Weak), and Mawdu (fabricated)? The very existence of needing a gradation system for the chain of narration of the Hadiths prove that Islam’s claims to simplicity are false. If the Quran really could provide what it claims, then why can’t people just read it, follow it, and live in a perfect utopia without a jurisprudence system, the broader hadiths, or the Sunnah to explain as supplementary material? Is the Abrahamic God incapable of providing instruction without supplementary material that needs a grading system that leads to moral ambiguity? I don’t understand why some Muslims claim that Hinduism and Christianity don’t make sense, meanwhile their own religion doesn’t just have one holy book, but multiple companion pieces to that holy book because – regardless of if your holy book refers to those companion pieces or not – it clearly wasn’t enough on its own to solve all human problems which is why it needs those companion pieces. If anything, the entire jurisprudence system of Islam proves that the Quran isn’t the perfect book to solve all human problems as it claims. If it was truly able to answer all questions, then the differing interpretation of the hadiths by so-called “Islamic scholars” wouldn’t matter at all. The Quran would just be able to explain it without any ambiguity or interpretation. In other words, the supposed simplicity that Islam claims to have over Christianity’s trinity or Hinduism’s heterodox tradition, doesn’t actually seem to exist. It’s a demonstrably false claim and the mere existence of the hadiths prove it.
There are certain logical errors within Islam that simply baffle me as a Hindu: Why isn’t the existence of the Quran simply proof that the Abrahamic God is a failure? Its own premise of the original Torah and the Injeel being corrupted, lost, and then conveniently abrogated would mean that the Abrahamic God’s revealed wisdom demonstrably failed to work twice. Thus, the Quran’s very existence contradicts the claims to Islam’s simplicity, since the assumption of the Quran’s necessity is predicated upon humanity failing to understand the Abrahamic God’s will twice before; over a series of hundreds or thousands of years. If we apply Occam’s Razor, it would simply be the case that humans have made-up the Abrahamic God as an invention to feel comfortable about life’s ambiguity and not that humanity has failed to learn the Abrahamic God’s moral lessons twice before the Quran was introduced to humanity. This is all ignoring the most salient failing of Islam: Why does the Prophet Mohammad’s lived example matter? Why does any prophet’s lived experiences and actions matter? If an all-powerful God instructed any prophet to give a set of instructions on how to live life for the best outcomes so that people go to heaven, then why couldn’t they just recite the instructions, people could then follow it, and then the perfect outcome simply happens by following the holy book regardless of external circumstances? Why do you need competing traditions like the four Sunni schools to interpret your God’s word and why can’t your God’s word be received in all languages instead of solely being limited to Arabic? Why didn’t Allah allow for the Quran to be perfectly understood in all languages so that the maximum amount of people could follow it without being incumbered by learning one language to better understand the Quran? If the Prophet Mohammad really was a prophet of the Abrahamic God as he claims, why is insulting the Prophet Mohammad held as a greater taboo than insulting Allah? In other words, why is the Prophet Mohammad held in higher esteem than Allah in Islam? To deny this would simply be a rationalization; insulting comments towards Allah is allowed, but insults towards the Prophet Mohammad can lead to physical confrontation in the majority of Islamic countries. How exactly does this make sense? If the Prophet Mohammad was sincere in his claims, why didn’t he hold Allah to a higher regard than himself? Why do some Islamic schools of thought such as in Pakistan hold Quran burning as more permissible than making an insulting picture or making insulting comments of the Prophet Mohammad? How is this not simply proof that Islam is nothing more than the Prophet Mohammad’s personality cult and that he elevated himself into the status of a God without calling himself a God in what amounts to a difference in semantics?
Further details and context from my Hindu Critiques Islam essays, which is also in book form.
Ancient Iranian religions
Most of these are from excerpts from Professor Paul Sprachman‘s translation of “Two Centuries of Silence” by Iranian Scholar Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub in which he explains the survived findings of the ancient and Medieval Iranian religions that Islam wiped out of existence, except for the very first part:
Zoroastrianism
First from Rustom Masani’s Zoroastrianism, The Religion of the Good Life:
And, broader specifics from excerpts of Professor Paul Sprachman‘s translation of “Two Centuries of Silence” by Iranian Scholar Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub:
More context on Zoroastrian Duality
Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub‘s analysis of Zoroastrian priesthood’s heavy emphasis on ritual purity and possible persecution against other faiths as a result:
Mazdakism
Zurvanism
Manichaeism
