#judaism isn't interested in evangelizing and such

[robot-roadtrip-rants]

Hang on, hang on, that's just not right. I can see how you might take a monolatrous interpretation from certain parts of the Bible, but there are just as many monotheist sections. I mean for heaven's sake:

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה אֱלֹקינוּ ה אֶחָֽד

"Hear O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem is one."

Like. That's not an ambiguous statement.

Or later on, in Psalms 115:

עֲצַבֵּיהֶם, כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב; מַעֲשֵׂה, יְדֵי אָדָם פֶּה-לָהֶם, וְלֹא יְדַבֵּרוּ; עֵינַיִם לָהֶם, וְלֹא יִרְאוּ אָזְנַיִם לָהֶם, וְלֹא יִשְׁמָעוּ; אַף לָהֶם, וְלֹא יְרִיחוּן. יְדֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יְמִישׁוּן--רַגְלֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יְהַלֵּכוּ; לֹא-יֶהְגּוּ, בִּגְרוֹנָם Their idols are of silver and gold; they are the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and do not speak; they have eyes and do not see They have ears and do not hear; they have noses and do not smell They have hands and do not touch--they have feet and do not walk; they do not speak with their throats

"LOL check out these LOSERS worshipping shiny objects, unlike US who worship the REAL deal! *Duck Hunting dog laugh*"

And then there's stories like Eliyahu challenging the priests of Baal to a god-off, where the priests can't get any response from Baal no matter what rituals they perform (1 Kings 18). You could interpret that as a monolatrous story where Hashem is just waaaaaaay more powerful than Baal, I suppose. But the story strikes me more as a demonstration of the non-existence of Baal. Just look at verses 26 and 27:

They took the bull that was given them; they prepared it, and invoked Baal by name from morning until noon, shouting, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no sound, and none who responded; so they performed a hopping dance about the alert that had been set up. When noon came, Elijah mocked them, saying, "Shout louder! After all, he is a god. But he may be in conversation, he may be detained, or he may be on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and will wake up."

That doesn't sound like a taunt about the power of Baal. That sounds like a mockery of the Canaanite conception of gods and godhood.

I do agree with that there's a monolatrous > monotheist drift in very, very early Judaism (Israelism?). But you're talking about the Tanakh like it's a purely monolatrous book when it isn't.

hey good faith question- do you mind elaborating on judaism’s belief of g-d not being the ‘one true g-d’ and just the ‘g-d of the hebrews?

sure, but keep in mind that I wasn't raised in a religious house, so I'm not an expert and this could be inaccurate, you could wait to see if other people would elaborate in reblogs or replies.

a lot of religions have the belief that they worship the true g-d(s) and everyone else is wrong and are worshipping (a) false g-d(s). I believe Christianity works like that.

in the Tanach, there is no claim that other religions' g-ds don't exist, in fact, there are instances were miracles from other g-ds happen, but the jewish g-d is described as unique and stronger than others.

for example, in the story of The Exodus (is that how יציאת מצרים is called in english), when Moses comes to the Pharaoh for the first time to ask to release the Hebrews, he showcases Hashem's (the Jewish g-d) strength by turning his staff into a snake, the Pharaoh's magicians(?) then proceed to also turn their staffs into snakes, but Moses's snake eats theirs. the story doesn't show their g-ds as non-existent, they gave the magicians the same powers as Hashem, but the power of Hashem was stronger and thus Moses's snake won over the other snakes.

foreign worship is banned in Judaism, not because the foreign g-ds are false, but because they're not Hashem, I don't know how to explain it but that's how it works.

[tanadrin]

Does Dan McClellan ever explain how he's a Mormon? I started listening to Data Over Dogma the other day, thanks your regular comments about it, and I'm absolutely boggled that this dude can say this shit and then go to church on Sunday.

he talked about his biography in his Mormon Stories appearance. he converted as an adult, around 19 or 20--he describes himself as feeling kind of aimless in life, having social connections through friends and family members to the mormon church, and being drawn to it that way. inferring a little bit from the context, he seems to have landed within a pocket of mormons that were either pretty pro-lgbt or not strenuously anti-lgbt--enough that that didn't put him off, given his agnostic and not particularly conservative background.

he's an interesting case, for sure! he explicitly avoids talking about his personal beliefs, so i can only guess what his exact though process was. but the impression i get is someone who 1) was strongly drawn to the social aspects of organized religion (and mormonism is very tight-knit socially), 2) was willing to suspend judgement on the more out-there elements of doctrine (the really off-the-wall historical stuff), and 3) isn't too pressed about the truth claims element of religion, or doesn't personally find that the most important part of religious experience and feeling.

and yet it is still kind of strange to me to listen to someone who is very thoughtful about the cognitive science of religion, who deeply understands the textual history of religious scripture, and who understands why you can't use faith-based arguments as part of any coherent methodology in the analysis of that scripture, to try to mount a defense of religiosity in general. i mean plainly people can do it. but i can't imagine how, unless there is some deep cognitive dissonance at work. i think that even if the truth claims of religion aren't the most important part of religion to you, they're plainly incredibly important when it comes to, like, how religious traditions are differentiated--if the truth claims don't matter, there's much less reason to be mormon vs episcopalian vs baptist.

i could see salvaging out of all that some kind of general moral therapeutic deism, or ultra-reformed judaism, or other spiritual-but-not-dogmatically-religious worldview--but belonging to an avowedly dogmatic, hierarchically organized religious institution, with the kind of internal discipline that means members like dan are (let us be charitable) less than entirely open with their criticisms less they face larger-scale social consequences--a problem not even modern Catholics face--and one which is nonetheless built on an unusually recent, and unusually disprovable set of truth claims like mormonism is--like, idk. it's really hard to imagine someone who knew all the stuff he knows about biblical history being drawn to mormonism if he had learned that stuff first. and if that's true that feels kind of like an indictment of the religion? like it really is mostly contingent features we don't care about in any deep way.

that makes more sense for ethnoreligions like judaism, and out of all american religions, mormonism is probably closest to being an ethnoreligion itself. it's pretty culturally insular compared to mainline protestantism. even most flavors of fundamentalist evangelicalism. the closest analogue is maybe the primitive baptists? and they're a tiny denomination. but if it was really a self-sustaining culture it probably wouldn't need a centralized hierarchy that excommunicated dissenters who got too big a public profile for criticizing the church.

[sonic-zombie]

I have a conspiracy theory that I currently have no evidence for regarding US involvement in the Israel genocide against the Palestinian people. If you're not interested in hearing a thought that I have not put research into then you can scroll right by.

While the Israel-Palastine conflict is not 100% about religion, I think a not insignificant part of the reason that the US supports Israel so much even when they are actively commiting genocide, is very much for religious reasons. Not about Judaism, but about Evangelical Christianity. A great majority of right wing US politicians, who are the most in support of Israel right now, are Evangelical Christian religious extremists. In the Christian belief, when Israel returns in a Biblical sense and the Temple is rebuilt, that is when Jesus will return and the End Times that many Evangelical Christians are so excited about will begin. So I think that the reason why so many US politicians want to aid in Israel's push for more land and more power, regardless of how they get it, isn't because they care so much about Israel's "right to self defense" or give any kind of a shit about the Jewish people living there, but because they believe it will bring back Jesus and prove them right.

Again I have like zero evidence for this just yet, it's just a theory, and an incredibly pessimistic one, so take what I am saying with a massive grain of salt. But it may be good to keep in mind when we are trying to push our government to call for a ceasefire and stop the murder of Palestinian people.

[enderthevoid]

Hi this is your invitation to go on a rant about religion because I also like religion and like hearing what people have to say about it

-🧃

OH MY GOD. /Pos

Since there wasn't any specification as to what religious topics, I'm just gonna talk about things I've researched and my own beliefs.

So I was raised by a Christian (Pentecostal specific) mother and a Jewish (bloodline and religion) father, mainly being brought up within the Pentecostal church and a few of those beliefs, while celebrating Jewish holidays. In all honesty, I have no idea what religion I really am, I just have a string of beliefs that don't tie to anything specific I know of, and if anyone IRL asks me about it I just say I'm Jewish because of my dad + it causes less confusion and doesn't require me explaining things.

Now, if you don't know what Pentecostal is, it is a branch of Christianity that has a firm belief that "if you don't speak in tongues, or have not received any holy gift, you are not saved by Christ."

"tongues" as they call it, is a holy language that only divine beings, and those with the gift of "translation" understand. Translation is self explanatory, in the sense that it can translate tongues into a human language.

As someone who also grew up with a mother who claimed to be "Messianic Jewish" as a Pentecostal woman, I can tell you,

MESSIANIC JUDAISM ISN'T JUDAISM.

Messianic Judaism is a christianized form of Judaism that stems from antisemitism. It's basically "Jews for Jesus" in the sense that they believe Jesus was God incarnate/Gods son, when the main belief in Judaism is that Jesus was kinda just a cool ass dude. It stems from the conversion of Jewish people into Christian Evangelicalism. This is because Jewish converts were forced by the church to basically abandon their Jewish-ness and assume the ways and beliefs of gentiles (non-jewish people) in order to receive baptism. The reason it isn't Judaism is because, again, Messianic Judaism contradicts a core Jewish belief that majorly separates it from Christianity. It started because these people wanted to "stay Jewish while believing in Jesus." And nowadays is basically just claimed by Christians who want to claim a Jewish heritage.

(btw I am open to correction and the opinions of others if I am wrong on this, this is based on my own research and hands on experience.)

Now onto my beliefs/things that interest me:

I am in no way Christian, as I do not believe in a singular God, however I do find the rosary (a Catholic practice) to be interesting, as well as prayer beads generally. I also find folk religion interesting, specifically folk Catholicism.

I believe in reincarnation, egregores, the existence of most if not all Gods, witchcraft, spirits, and multiple afterlives (and yes, I do also believe in the mundane/science) (just to name a few that I can think of at the moment. I'll edit later if I think of more)

"but how do you believe in reincarnation AND multiple afterlives?"

That's because I believe a soul has its limits. A soul can be reincarnated as many times as it needs to/wants to, before it can settle into an afterlife best suited for its pattern of living throughout its various lives. I believe one life is not enough for an eternal punishment or eternal paradise. It's like an experiment, there needs to be several tests done before a conclusion can be made about it, and where to move forward from it.

Thank you Anon/🧃 for requesting a special interest rant :3 <3 the autism goes CRAZY

-💌 (Callum/Cecil he/they/it)

[roboromantic]

5 6 7 am thoughts

why do I keep seeing posts on this website insist that evangelicals try to convert prople just to have a larger "number of souls savef" count than others. like maybe that's a thing in some groups but like................I've never heard of any kind of reward for converting more people or anything.

also I gotta say it's a tad frustrating seeing people talk about how Mormonism is a cult and these kids are brainwashed into believing the world's against them etc. and being sympathetic and sharing resources on how to leave, but posts on evangelicals just paint them as cartoonishly evil. sometimes I'll see something that says it's a cult but there's never anything on how to leave (though admitedly it's gonna generally be less legally complicated than it is for mormons) or talk about how evangelicals are also made to believe that the world is against them or how evangelicals try to convert you because they truely believe it would save you from eternal torture.

like now that I'm out I see how infuriating it is to be proselytized to, but growing up in it? I was a super lonely kid who tried to make people more christian according to CoC values bc I was terrified of losing the few friends I had. also there was literal animal abuse involved where we were told we were bad people if we were more likely to rush to help the goldfish they fucking threw on the pavement than to try and save people from hell

like. when you're fundamentalist there's really no room to respect other people's beliefs, because respecting their beliefs (and boundaries) would mean condemning them to eternal torture

so again I get why people hate it and I definitely understand now how it's used to eradicate cultures etc. but I find it hard to hate the individual who from their perspective is just trying to help me

ironically though the insistence on isolating me and saying that anyone who isn't CoC was probably one of the biggest reasons I ended up leaving. how could heaven be this perfect place if my friends weren't there

there was this post in r/judaism linking to an article talking abt svara's upcoming teshuvot for lgbt halacha and it's something I've been keeping an eye on for a while for obvious reasons, but while I don't want to make any judgements until the whole thing is actually released, I will say from the phrasing in the article it sounds like they're approaching it from a different angle than I would. like it seems to be "how can I affirm my gender in a Jewish way" and while I can 100000% understand that, I'm more interested in "what are the issues that arise when someone is (in my case) halachically female but looks male and is it possible to resolve these issues in a way that's respectful to everyone and if so, how?"

like. there was another post by a trans man wanting to figure out how to respectfully interact w/Chabad and someone else (I think) brought up this same idea of one's halachic gender vs I think they called it sociological gender and it was kinda weird to me seeing so many people talk about how that's not a thing, can never be a thing, halachic gender is the only important factor, etc. bc like. I highly doubt anyone would say my halachic gender is all that matters if my bearded, flat-chested, (sorta) deep-voiced ass went to sit on the women's side of a mechitza. hell, I KNOW that'd cause a problem, I've seen it happen.

like personally I'd be fine with a trichitza, I ain't trying to sit with men (though again I can understand why being able to sit with one's gender can be affirming for binary cis people) and I don't particularly want to sit with women either even if marit ayin wasn't an issue.

where was i going with this. idk it's like 2 hours after i started writing this and im tired and still don't have adhd meds, this was never gonna be coherent im gonna try to go back to sleep

[a-queer-seminarian]

So I have a somewhat technical theological question for you based on a post I saw recently (I think it was one of yours or you'd commented, but not 100% sure) and am hoping for your insight on it. On the post I'm thinking of, it was mentioned that in some denominations of Christianity, Judaism is seen as a sister religion that is still valid by God, as he has kept his promise to the Jewish people. I've also encountered the idea that Jews will get a "second chance" to convert during the end times. Would this still apply to a Jew by choice who was baptized and raised Christian? Or would that person be considered an apostate/be seen as having turned their back on Jesus and salvation?

Hey there, anon! Thank you for the question. Sorry my response is long lol, but this is a complex and extremely important topic!

Also, for future reference for you and others, I prefer to receive any asks that aren't specifically about me or seminary stuff over on my broader blog, @blessedarethebinarybreakers.

____

I do indeed have a post over on my other blog about how Jewish people already have a completely fulfilling relationship with God.

This viewpoint is one I have learned from Christians who seek interfaith relationship with Jewish persons.

For instance, Barabara Brown Taylor expounds upon it in her book Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others, which I highly recommend for Christians who are seeking to understand how to respect persons of other faiths while being committed to their own. I've got a tag with passages from Holy Envy that you can start out with to see if you're interested in the whole book :)

I've also been deeply enriched by the perspectives of Jewish persons like New Testament scholar Amy Jill Levine — I have tons of passages from her here — and Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, whom you should totally follow if you have a Twitter. (See also the couple of great threads from her I've shared here on tumblr)

That viewpoint is completely contrary to the other one that you bring up — that at the End Times, Jews will have a "second chance" to convert. That viewpoint is all too common in Christianity, and it causes real harm to Jewish people here and now.

In this viewpoint, back in Gospel times, the Jewish people rejected Jesus as their messiah. In this viewpoint, Jewish scriptures — what Christians unfortunately dub the "Old Testament" — foretell Jesus as the messiah, so in "rejecting him," basically they've completely misread their own scriptures.

...To tell a people group they have their own scripture wrong is...condescending, to say the least.

Another problem with this viewpoint is that in order for the Jewish people to "reject" Jesus as messiah, they'd have to have considered him a contender in the first place...and they didn't! Jesus just isn't relevant to Judaism.

This is a bad comparison (because Hindus in my cultural context at least don't go around doing this kind of thing the way Christians do lol), but to try to help make the point, if say, a Hindu told me I've rejected Shiva, I'd be like...I haven't? Shiva's just not relevant to my life. How can I have rejected a deity that I've barely contemplated??

Many Christians who believe that all Jews (and/or all non-Christians) will have a last chance to convert to Christianity / accept Jesus as Lord etc. genuinely believe that this is a kind and respectful viewpoint. I used to think so, too! It's only been through listening to Jewish persons and other non-Christians that I've come to understand how it perpetuates Christian supremacy (after all, it implies that Christianity is supreme, that all good people should and will one day become Christian).

An extreme version of this viewpoint that's common in white evangelicalism is that a widespread conversion of Jews is one of the signs (or catalysts?) of the End Times. These Christians make converting Jewish people a priority. Historically, this has brought horrific violence upon Jewish communities, and that continues to this day.

So yeah, TL;DR: the Jewish people can't have a "second chance" to become Christian because, 1) there was no "first chance,” no time the whole Jewish people “rejected” Jesus and/or Christianity; and 2) they don’t need a “second chance,” since they already have a valid and fulfilling relationship with the Divine.

_____

Finally, to answer the last bit of your question about the End Time fate of someone baptized & raised Christian and converted to Judaism:

I totally understand if you are worried about that either for yourself or someone else in your life. The Christian supremacist ideas about who "needs" that kind of "second chance" are deeply ingrained in a lot of us, and take a long time to fully unpack! So whatever your beliefs are, current or future, about the End Times and heaven and all of that, I hope you can find comfort in this:

God's compassion is infinite, beyond any human compassion. If you or I as human beings could imagine having mercy on such a person, so much more for God!

A lot of Christians, especially white evangelical Christians, put a lot of their focus on the End Times and the world to come — but if you take some time to revisit Jesus's own ministry, you'll notice how little he brings up the world to come. He's much more focused on bringing liberation here and now. Same goes for the prophets before him, from Moses to Amos to Isaiah. God's will is for our flourishing here and now — on earth as it is in heaven.

So as far as possible, I believe it's often most fruitful to put aside end time talk and thoughts about some abstract afterlife — to pay more attention to what's going on right now, in your little corner of this beautiful planet. What injustices would Esther, Jeremiah, Jesus be calling out? Who are the mighty who need to be cast down from their thrones, who are the oppressed in need of empowerment, and how can I, you, we participate in that? That's where our focus needs to be. When it comes to what comes next, we can rely on the compassion of the God who created us not for suffering, but for flourishing, not for punishment, but restoration.

____

Further Reading:

Reminder about the Holy Envy book quotes on respecting non-Christians

And again with the Amy Jill Levine quotes link

My antisemitism tag on my other blog is full of stuff to help Christians recognize where we are failing to love our Jewish neighbors as ourselves. This post in particular is a good starting place.

And this post is also a good place to start, with ideas for avoiding or uprooting supersessionism (the idea that Judaism was made irrelevant by Christianity) in your Christian beliefs

A really old post where I talk about the idea of the "end times" a bit more

I forever love this quote about letting go of both our fear of punishment and desire for reward

On that topic, here's my post on why I think the idea of hell is a human idea, not a divine one — and how that ties to the movement for prison abolition here and now

And here's my tag for stuff about, like, the afterlife, heaven, hell, etc. in general

If you're accustomed to reading the Bible through a lens of "if it's in the Bible, it's God's will," you might be interested in seeing another framework option.

[softlyfiercely]

im sorry i couldn't let this go, i've seen this come across my dashboard THREE TIMES NOW and you all need to grow some critical thinking skills, please, i am begging you...anyway i just screenshotted this cause i really don't wanna get into it with anyone but this is the stupidest most ignorant thing i've read regarding religion in a long ass time.

placing this under a cut to be polite and save everyone's dashboards - I'm a Jew who converted to Christianity, so i guess my Jewish desire to be polite and considerate managed to override my christian religious mandate to be an asshole on this day...you're welcome everyone

first of all, judaism is a culture and faith that is six thousand years old, and christianity is two thousand years old, and both have spanned entire continents, so it is impossible for any quick rambly tumblr post to be able to remotely capture the reality and nuances of either one.

for example! claiming that in "judaism," divorce is totally accepted and acknowledged and women are free to just up and leave their man and it's some kind of feminist utopia is laughably bullshit! structures of patriarchal oppression use Jewish divorce law to control women - there's even a word, agunah, which means "chained woman." there are currently, as you read this, Jewish women in America who are trapped in this system, and it often leads to all sorts of violence and other nonsense!

also...the story of Leah and Rachel and Jacob is part of Jewish scripture and it isn't exactly a "rah rah women aren't men's property" moment, is it? it's almost like this is a complex subject with lots of nuance!

what about christianity? this brilliant theological scholar claims that divorce is a sin in christianity, just, flat out, period, end of sentence. it's good and allowed in judaism but bad and forbidden in christianity. is that true? of course not!!! most contemporary branches of christianity currently recognize divorce and accept divorced members in their congregation. Jesus is cited multiple times in the Gospels making statements about marriage and divorce that are, let's say...open to interpretation (see Matthew 5, Matthew 19, John 4). hell, we have an entire branch of christianity that partly started because some dude really, really wanted to divorce his wife.

so it makes no sense to say that judaism is totes cool with divorce but christianity is super mean about it. in reality, both religions have believers who use their laws/traditions to oppress women and uphold patriarchal structures, and followers of both religions have found their way to more progressive understandings of marriage and divorce.

also, love the citation of "puritans" as an example of what "christianity" is. puritanism was a small, radical offshoot of christianity - they were run out of entire countries, as you may remember, for being weird and extra about stuff. plus puritanism only appeared in the 1500s, so christianity had been bopping around developing some other theology for a while until then. and while much of american christianity can be traced back to puritan roots, you won't exactly find many practicing "puritans" running around in the 21st century.

so using "puritans" as the platonic example of What Christianity Is just makes no historical sense. if you want to talk about puritan ideas, go ahead. if you want to compare puritan thought to a specific era or sect of Jewish thought, that would be interesting! but you can't just say "some dudes in the 1600s did stuff, and that's what all christians do and believe"

it is also absurd to claim that christian faith makes no room for questioning. again, this person seems to be either citing very specific contemporary evangelical attitudes, or ahistorical caricatures, as a broad strokes representation of a 2000 year old, global religion. in fact, there's been a LOT of excellent christian thought and writing about wrestling with God, struggling with doubt, and asking questions. don't believe me? check out this overview in a popular contemporary christian publication.

also, it's silly to say that asking questions or challenging one's faith is 100% encouraged and accepted at all times "in judaism." google "off the derech" or check out some of these sources. Neither christianity or judaism, as a whole, is a pure perfect innocent cinnamon roll uwu of a religion.

the thing is that people use religion and religious institutions for their own purposes. power, wealth, control, etc. they will use the one most convenient and relevant to their purposes. it is not a feature unique to christianity.

and i can't even TOUCH that last bit. the notion that everything we find yucky about various historical iterations of christianity were nowhere until a bunch of jesus freaks just thought them up? what??? the idea that the entirety of christian thought and belief came about because some Very Nasty People just woke up one day and decided to be cruel and destructive? are you for real???

that's not...how things work. that's not how anything works. you are not "stating the obvious" because you are making such an absurdly false statement that it just...have you ever read, like, a book?

the history of western christianity is thousands of years long, and it includes hundreds of different influences, from plague epidemics to corrupt rulers, and there have always been a ton of people writing, thinking, talking, and arguing about what it means to follow Jesus.

there is a LOT of christian thought and history that does exactly what this person claims never happens in christianity - celebrates the body, honors the dignity of every person, upholds joy and pleasure as sacred, etc. OP i think is referring to the ideas of thomas aquinas who was JUST ONE DUDE in the 1200s and does not represent everything that every christian has ever believed, done, or taught. check out the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, Gerard Manley Hopkins, or Julian of Norwich.

there are some christian practices and beliefs that arose from people's good faith efforts to follow a loving God. there are some that arose from people in power trying to cling to their own privilege. and most of them come from a combination of both! guess what - this is also true of judaism! turns out, both christianity AND judaism have really messy, complicated, nuanced backgrounds! one is not just a bunch of people saying Let's All Be Cool And Make The World Nice And Good vs. a competing bunch of people going Let's All Be Dicks And Ruin Everything. that makes no sense! think about the things that you are saying!!!

if you're curious about this, or if you want to be able to have a more nuanced opinion about whatever you think "christianity" is, i'd recommend a book called Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. It's a great place to start for an in depth, heavily sourced study of exactly how christian thought about a specific issue changed, developed, and solidified. there, you'll see that there is no way to summarize what "christianity" does, believes, or says, because it's wide ranging and ever changing. you'll also see that certain problematic attitudes or beliefs don't just spring up because Christians Are Assholes, but because of competing pressures and influences from inside and outside the church.

if you want a free copy of that book, PM me and I will send you one. seriously. even if you hate christianity, had terrible personal experiences with a contemporary church, etc. it's a great read. there are sexy love letters between gay monks. im serious.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

Hiya, your pinned post said to introduce if you’re a new follower -

I followed after seeing you had liked my response on that insanely long Catholic post. I appreciated the takes you had earlier in that chain and the nuanced view of religion that wasn't based in proselytizing. Also mad appreciation for other observant queer folk esp observant nonbinary people.

And I feel like I should probably say this out the gate even though it's obvious - but I am Catholic.

I have a deep respect for the Jewish faith and people. (As much as I can from the outside of course, and without belaboring you with too much backstory) Where I live the shared view of Catholics here is that Catholicism and Judaism share a familial connection of faith through shared beliefs and value of tradition, and should be loved and respected as family. I'm aware that can be a loaded viewpoint, and I'm not trying to be weird, but like, I'm super interested in hearing more of your theology points, and I have -1000 interest in debating 'what religion is correct' nonsense or trying to convert or preach. That's a waste of everyone's time and an incredible disrespect to the followers of beautiful religions several millenia old.

My issues where I jump in are with people misrepresenting and twisting Catholicism and evangelicals/fundamentalists trying to spread hate and division, because that's definitely not what God is about. By the same token I also have a really deep knowledge of the Catholic catechism, and while I stay off like, joke questions and posts, when someone's looking for the actual canon answer I'm super happy to share it or give resources to find it.

All that aside 95% of what I post isn't religious and like I said, super excited to hear your takes, and if you have anything you want to say to me re:above or if you'd rather I DNI, lmk, or if you ever need to @ a Catholic for a take on something I'd be glad to toss in info. :)

Hope you're having a great week :)

Hi!! You are definitely welcome here and honestly this message really warmed my heart. I very much appreciate your approach as well, and am fascinated by comparative religion.

That said, while I am absolutely working on speaking in a way that is more compassionate and am trying to be someone who can do good interfaith dialog, I can definitely have some, er, strident strong takes on some Xtian things, as I was raised Xtian and converted to Judaism as an adult. I would encourage you to check out my "every hour is theology hour around here apparently" tag to make sure it's not going to be too much/upsetting for you since it can be a lot.

Bottom line is that there are two strong impulses in me that both are (and on some level are also not) in conflict with one another: I have very strong opinions and critiques of Xtianity having left it for cause, and seeing all of the damage it has caused throughout history and unfortunately the people (mis)using it in the present, especially (but far from exclusively) with regards to antisemitism. And on the other hand, I've also seen it give people new life and hope and be a light in the darkness, and be a way that some folks profoundly connect to the Divine. And I genuinely believe that no tradition has a monopoly on truth; rather, I think that G-d wants to be in relationship with humanity, and will speak to us in whatever voice we're most likely to hear. For me that's Judaism, for you, that's Catholicism, and honestly? I think that's great. Who am I to judge anyone else's relationship to G-d and who am I to think I've found the one singular and only truth of the universe?

All of that is true for me all at the same time, and so I absolutely welcome you to stay and would love to be in dialogue with you as well. But I can also see how that could be challenging and give someone who is not me whiplash, so I just wanted to give you a heads up.

tl;dr: You are totally welcome to stay, with the understanding that I am frequently a Bitter Jew(tm) on main with strong opinions, but I also do care deeply about positive interfaith dialogue when the chips are down and am fascinated with comparative religion.

Also re: other observant religious queer, trans and/or non-binary folks - agreed! I hope you are having a nice week as well, and right back at you re: if you need to @ someone about Judaism.

[sapropel]

The main things that turned me off of conversion for now were

1. I have alot of shit on my plate and am low income as a result so finding a place that will help might be hard because locally there really aren't any synagogues around

2. The synagogue I did find locally was uhhh...... Hhhhh. Their web page had a huge section about Israel in a positive light..

I love the religion, I love certain values it holds however I refuse to align with anyone who justifies colonialism and bloodshed against another group of people while ignoring past bloodshed done onto themselves. It makes 0 sense to me and is highly hypocritical.

Hypocrisy was one of the reasons I hated Christianity so much. Constantly causing bloodshed, huge present and past history of colonialism, huge present day history of wanting people like me who are gay or trans dead and in the ground.

the difference with Christianity is that there isn't even a present day persecution or justified worry of safety despite the fact that I've seen jack chick esque evangelical fuckers unironically act like they're holocaust survivors whenever a pride parade happens within 1 mile of them.

It makes me sad, I don't see the point in colonizing or maiming a group of people who should be your equals.

It's racist at best, dangerous and actively contributing to more death and violence at worst.

The thing is there isn't really a "point." It creates its own point. Real actionable Zionist sentiment was basically non-existent until the rise of European nationalism. It's literally the exact same brand of nationalism that gave birth to fascist Italy and other great failures of modernity. And when "Israel" was a proto-state basically its entire existence was contingent upon its continued usefulness to Britain as a tool of control over India through the Suez. Zionist claims to the land are super shaky at best and straight up revisionist at worst. Post-facto Israel has tried to give itself legitimacy through fearmongering, genocide, and forging alliances with other imperialist powers. It's doing what America did (and is doing) but it's happening in the age of mass media and we are all watching colonial revisionism happen in real time.

If you are letting the prevalence of Zionism keep you from Judaism, I would say you should keep thinking about it. If you treat Judaism as too thoroughly engulfed in Zionism, you do the work of Zionists for them--you legitimize their claim that Judaism is Zionism is Israel. You legitimize the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism which is incidentally exactly how my local rabbis have been fucking me over since June. You are of course totally within your rights not to convert to a religion that doesn't work for you, but I hope you rethink the implication that converting to Judaism is akin to aligning with Zionism.

And yeah, Zionist hypocrisy is a systematic issue within American Jewish institutions in a feedback loop with Jewish populations. Any institutional apparatus is going to have systematic issues that reflect the dominant discourse of the greater cultural framework--mainstream Jewish institutions are going to, both by the nature of maintaining relevancy in America and by the natures of fearmongering and cultural amnesia, have a vested interest in participating in capitalism, imperialism, racism... You are not going to find mainstream insitutions that don't perpetuate them. That's why they're dominant. You are no more aligning yourself with Zionism by going to a synagogue than you are aligning yourself with capitalism by shopping at Wal-Mart. Anything you meaningfully do in public is in some way going to be "problematic" on some level because public space is designed to keep itself alive by those values.

It's exhausting to make yourself never come close to anyone or anything bad at all--refusing to associate with anyone with a problematic ideology is a doomed enterprise. I've been there. A lot of Zionist sentiment is implanted in people's minds with lifelong propaganda and destructive mind control techniques, and it's important to recognize that. That doesn't mean Zionist adults don't have a responsibility to unlearn it, but I think it's possible to have compassion for people who do try to do their best with improving themselves. Most people you meet want to be good and don't want to be willfully ignorant. I try to think about how difficult it is to convince the average well-meaning white American of the merits of decolonization/land back. Most well-meaning Zionist Jews are going to feel the same way about Israel--actual systematic justice and decolonization are not in their lexicons. Decolonization is hidden behind thought-stopping techniques that they have been inundated with from day 1. But most people do have a basic sense of goodness and are willing to sacrifice something for it. Most people are willing to give ground for the sake of human decency. The only way I can survive talking to people I know are Zionists is by understanding that we both want the world to be a better place and if I dwell on the specifics of how I perceive them to be evil, the possibility of us having a working relationship and any hope at productive dialogue drops to zero.

You don't have to be patient with Zionists or Zionist institutions. You don't have to forgive them. You don't even have to be compassionate. But you do need to understand, intellectually, that imposed cognitive dissonance is a very powerful tool of mind control (and I'm not talking about woo-woo shit I'm extrapolating from cult research and personal experience) and that the pathos of Zionism isn't supposed to be logical. Fear trumps hypocrisy. Fatigue trumps informed consent. Charisma trumps logic. Any bigoted ideology is going to fall apart under logical scrutiny, and that's why the only battleground for maintaining bigotry is necessarily charismatic and emotional.

We haven't yet, of course, acknowledged that there are also tons of anti-Zionist Jews and that the concept isn't absurd or fringe, no matter what the dominant Zionist discourse says. It's important for us not to let Zionists be the stewards of Judaism--Zionists do not OWN Judaism. Just like the most Orthodox of Jews also don't OWN Judaism. Judaism is only what you make it to be, and if you leave it alone because you are too worried about Zionism, that is all Judaism is ever going to be for you. Of course, you still have to contend with Zionism, and if you actually are interested in being a Jew, you would have to find a way not to let it kill your Judaism. I've come close (ish) to giving up on Judaism a couple of times because of Israel and Zionism, but I'm glad I haven't. I've stuck it out long enough to give myself to tools I need to separate the two and see the situation with more clarity.

[blackoutchocolate]

Hi! Just out of genuine curiosity because I don't know a whole lot about Judaism, how do you guys generally feel about Catholics? Like I know you posted about how modern Christianity isn't connected to Judaism, so I was just interested to hear your view on Catholicism since I'm Catholic. If you don't feel comfortable answering that's obviously 100% okay too. Have a lovely day :)

I mean, personally I’m relatively neutral. I live in the US so very Christian centric world and I have some Catholic friends. I have more issues with Christianity as default and when people assume that everyone is Christian or well acquainted with Christianity.

My one issue that’s really and truly with Christianity is evangelicalism. I think prosteletyzing and missionaries are one of the most offensive things in existence. I don’t know if Catholicism prosteletyzes but Christianity in general really frustrates me in that regard.

I don’t know a lot of the differences between branches of Christianity but I think Catholicism requires good work and not just faith and I appreciate that. I also think there’s some really useful things in Catholic practices-my understanding is the rosary is really helpful to people (it’s can be similar to a meditation, I think?) and I expect confession could be like talk therapy.

Like all religions, I think it is what you do with it. If it’s what works for you, more power to you. Just be respectful of other people while you’re at it.

[covington-shenanigans]

@richiethelesbian asked this in the comments:

"I know it's different for everybody, but what would you say a relationship with G-d is like in Judaism? As a former Christian I was brought up to always be scared but also in awe of Them, so I'm interested in what the dynamic is like for you!

"(I'm very sorry if I worded anything wrong, let me know if there's a better way to ask this question!)"

(I'm going to answer for myself, because as is usually the case, every Jewish person you ask is probably going to have a different opinion.)

generally speaking, the concept of "a relationship with G-d" in the Christian sense is not something that translates very well to Judaism. I was raised evangelical, and it seemed like the entire point to Christianity (aside from the Get Out Of Hell Free card) was to have a right "relationship with G-d" -- it was viewed as being one of the most important things you could do. we got all kinds of sermons and lessons and whatnot on, like, strengthening and deepening your relationship with G-d -- almost like marriage counseling. the focus was on the individual relationship with G-d, personally.

Judaism is much more community-focused in some pretty basic ways, and this is one of those ways. it's not that Jews don't pray individually, because we often do, although our prayer tends to be liturgical and not necessarily free-form. it's that the attitude and approach to G-d as a concept and... an entity, I guess... is just so fundamentally different. if the Christian god is somewhere between a parent and an employer, the Jewish G-d is almost an older sibling: someone you value and who values you, but also someone with whom you've had a lot of arguments and even fights. but even that isn't approached on a personal level as much as a community level.

as a community, as a people, we have a collective relationship with G-d, the defining moment of which is Sinai. that is the basis of our entire people's relationship with G-d: standing as a people, past, present, and future, at the foot of Mt. Sinai, accepting the covenant of Torah when no other people of the world would (this is midrash, don't have a reference right now, sorry). "we will do, and we will hear." what will we do? well, we're gonna find out once G-d gives us the Torah.

and then G-d gives us the Torah and says, "this is yours now. we've made a deal: you will be my people and I will be your G-d. keep my laws and I will protect and deliver you into the promised land."

and we say, "excellent, thank you. as you have given us the Torah, the law that you handed down to us, we will now take that Torah and tear it apart and examine it and argue passionately over it across generations. we will teach it to our children as you have instructed us, we will think upon when we rise and when we sleep, but we have to figure out when morning starts and when day ends, so that we may hew to your law as faithfully as possible. we will do this l'dor v'dor, from generation to generation. and since you gave it to us as it is, your contribution to Torah is now closed. we'll take it from here."

and G-d said, "uh"

and we said, "no, really, we got it. we'll figure it out. this is ours now, yes? so, nu, you've said all you needed to, yes?"

and G-d said, "...guess so. have fun!"

and we were already busy studying and arguing so we didn't hear G-d and therefore didn't really respond except to mumble in Aramaic as we wrote yet another fucking argument about cattle or whatever in the Talmud.

the point, as irreverent as I'm being, is this: we are collaborators with G-d and each other in keeping our relationship with G-d as a people. even more than that, we are partners in creation with G-d. both the jewish people and G-d are necessary for us to exist in that relationship, and indeed for creation itself to exist and continue.

the fundamental Jewish relationship with G-d, therefore, is 1) collectively based, 2) collaborative (between our fellow Jews and between us and G-d), and 3) argumentative, or rather, a passionate debate in single-minded pursuit of fucking doing this thing right. saying individual prayers and talking to G-d one on one is certainly a thing Jews can do, and often do on an everyday level. but because of how Judaism is fundamentally, most of the expression of our "relationship with G-d" is necessarily done by both adhering to the standards we've decided on (i.e., attempt to say 100 blessings a day) and by acting on this relationship in community.

there are certain prayers we cannot say without our community around us! we are required to say the Mourner's Kaddish (a prayer that praises G-d and speaks of G-d's divine justice) when someone dies, but we can't do it if we don't have a minyan (ten adult Jews). this is why you'll see people turn up for shiva (the first week of mourning) in suits and ties on break from their office job. you've never seen these people before, but someone in their circle put out the call that there's a shiva happening and by G-d they are going to turn up in time to say kaddish because otherwise you might not have enough people and wouldn't be able to say it.

and that wouldn't be a failing on the part of the mourner, that would be a failure of the community for not meeting its obligations to the mourners! the fact that G-d is the recipient of the kaddish is almost incidental. yes, some Jews will tell you the ultimate point of saying kaddish is to fulfill our obligation to G-d, but other Jews (me included) will say the more important obligation in this instance is of the community to the mourners!

so here we have a prayer that you, a person in mourning, are legally required to say, and that may seem like it relates to your personal relationship to G-d. but it actually says a lot more about your community's relationship to G-d and even more than that about your community's responsibility to itself and everyone in it.

I've spent a lot of words trying to wrestle this concept onto the page, so to speak, because it's such a different thing than what Christians are raised with that it almost isn't understandable without the larger context. the primary Jewish relationship with G-d is collective. the collective Jewish relationship with G-d is fighty, yes, but it's fighty because we're family. the Torah is our family history as much as it is the basis for our extensive religious legal framework, and sometimes you're going to fight with family and sometimes you're going to celebrate joyful occasions and dance with each other, and sometimes you're going to hurt each other and apologize, and sometimes you're just going to sit and eat a meal and kvetch. and you love each other, at the end of the day. but it doesn't make the relationship not complicated.

that's what a relationship is: it's complex, it takes work, there will be disagreement, and the most important part is that everyone involved has to be committed to engaging with each other. that's what makes it real.

I've noticed only ever really hear "G-d fearing" when it refers to Christians. I think that's mostly because if you're a "G-d fearing jew," then you're a chump and a coward.

Most Jews I know would barefist fight G-d behind an alley on a Tuesday afternoon.

[greenandhazy]

Okay wait, if God isn't omnibenevolent, then how is saying he delights in us meant to be a comforting sentiment instead of a chilling indictment?

Okay listen I just got back from a bar so this is going to be a little blunt and maybe rude and I apologize in advance but every time I see a version of this question I get so exasperated and want to ask if the person has studied ANY theology EVER past like the sixth grade level, because seriously, it’s not like people only woke up in the past five decades and were like “HEY, why is the world not perfect??? shouldn’t God be making it perfect??” like theologians have been debating this for-fucking-ever and it’s not nearly as simple as evangelical atheists posit it.

right off the bat I’m going to say that I don’t understand how saying “God delights in us” can ever be reading as a “””chilling indictment”””? like. I just don’t know what you mean by that, I can’t reach that conclusion without making a few leaps of logic. so I’m just gonna ignore that particular part of the question and focus on that “if God isn’t omnibenevolent” part.

For one thing, omnibenevolent would mean nice to all people all the time. Which is pretty much impossible. There are going to be times when two people are in direct opposition and God can’t tip the scales in both of their favor at the same time. Also, not really desirable either. Should God be kind to evil people? Should God be equally kind to people when they’re doing good things and when they’re doing bad things? Nope. So even assuming God does God’s BEST to be omnibenevolence, total benevolence is not an attainable goal.

For thing numero dos, God in [many/most interpretations of] [modern] Judaism is not a micromanager. God doesn’t intervene in every tiny little aspect of people’s lives. You see this even in the Hebrew Bible; there’s a reason that when God directly intervenes in human affairs it’s usually deemed a miracle, because it’s out of the ordinary, and when a human being feels that direct presence it’s often because they’re an extraordinary person, because they are someone who’s about to affect the ENTIRE people Israel instead of just being an individual, and/or because it’s a period when God is said to be closer to people in general. Like, the 40 years of wandering in the desert is often called an exceptional moment in history, a “honeymoon period” in which God and the people Israel share an unprecedented spiritual closeness, and that’s the time when we have the most stories of God taking interest in people’s day to day lives.

But that hasn’t been true for most of history. God just... doesn’t control everything. Like if we’re thinking about “unfair deaths” for example--how could God control all of the trillions of decisions that could affect people while preserving human choice? Does God intervene to keep people eating the exact diet that prevents them from getting heart disease? Does God monitor every driver so no car ever crashes? Does God tell people when to go to the doctor, then warn them when their doctor fails to spot a problem, or when it’s misdiagnosed, or when there’s a better doctor at the practice down the road, or that their case is the 1 in 500 chance where the “worse” doctor will be able to fix their problem and the specialist slips up? I could go on and on. Point is, God doesn’t do it all for everyone. We may trust God in GENERAL but we don’t trust God to do everything.

And for the record, tradition also allows for God’s INDIRECT actions. You don’t pray for divine healing and say “God will help me” instead of going to the doctor because guess what, medicine and doctors are also instruments of God’s will. There’s a tractate of Talmud (not bothering to look up the source b/c it’s almost midnight and I have class tomorrow) that says something like “You will walk in the ways of your LORD. What does this mean? Is it possible for a human to walk in the ways of  the Almighty? [The rabbi answered] It means you are to visit the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and bury the dead, as the LORD did for [various people in the Torah]” and that’s basically the whole approach to many of the commandments in Judaism. They’re meant to be ways for human beings to take on holy duties and bring holiness into the world without relying on divine intervention.

Third thing: The most complex part of the answer is... God is complex and I’m willing to accept that I don’t always understand God’s thinking. I’m willing to believe that God delights in me, that God loves humanity, and has special relationships with people, and that life is still sometimes shitty and unfair. I’m willing to accept that suffering is as much a part of life as joy, that injustice and justice both exist. Because without injustice, humans couldn’t really be just. That was one of the Big Things about Adam and Chava (Eve), that they became aware of the difference between good and evil. Before they knew there was a difference, they only did good, but--so what? they didn’t make a choice. they weren’t actually altruistic, they weren’t THINKING. that’s the difference between angels, who are the puppets of God, and humans, who deal with complexities and shades of grey. 

Like okay, idk if you’re an atheist or agnostic or religious or what, but if you don’t believe in God, fine. Then answer me, what is life? Why isn’t life fair? Why isn’t life nice? If there is NO spirituality at all, what are we meant to do? Reproduce and fertilize the earth? Then why do anything except that? Why talk to other people, listen to music, build things, waste time on this website? Even if at its most basic, WHAT is life? What started the Big Bang? Where does matter come from? What separated the first living cell from the rest of the matter in the universe?

At a certain point... you just have to say it is what it is. I believe in God. I don’t believe I will ever understand God, and Judaism doesn’t ask me to. To think of God in the “well, what can God do for me?” way would be to cheapen my concept of life itself.

for fuck’s sake this answer is so long and I can’t even come up with a real answer, there are a million different points of view in Judaism and I can’t summarize all of them. I’m not even good at abstract rhetorical arguments so I don’t know how much of this makes sense. also the point of the original post was to show how there can be multiple competing views of God in one community and there’s no one answer and it’s more important imo to be able to have conversations about our values and our beliefs and struggle for understanding than to actually understand

that’s all I got

[jeannereames]

An interesting post, and very true. The best fantasy worldbuilding does present competing ideas about the way the world works. TBF, not all types of fantasy lend themselves to this sort of thing (mythopoetic works such as Peter S. Beagel's or Meredith Ann Pierce's). But sprawling epic and historical fantasy does.

In my own current WIP (Master of Battles), not only did two different branches of humanity survive, but within each, are different cultures/religions. And even within cultures, there are competing systems. So Ision's father, who was trained at philosophy, is far more skeptical about traditional religion, while his mother belongs to one of the few evangelical religions (no, not a Judaism, Christianity or Islam copy), and is very (fanatically) devout...although her half-brother (the Gua-Ren) isn't. Ision himself leans more to his father's take, but because of the conflict growing up, comes to adopt many of the views of his lover, Teo's, people, from Four Rivers, even while maintaining traditional sacrifices because it's required. So he's a big ball of religious syncretism. Ha

My biggest concern when writing something sprawling like this is the tendency for some readers to grab onto the first example of ___ they meet, and assume all ____ will be like that. To some degree, that's human nature. We do it frequently, so the one French person we met through work becomes the Mouthpiece of All French Attitudes. (ha) But if we later actually visit France, we might learn our workmate was rather atypical.

Same thing applies to fiction, especially anything that promises to be a long series. If the author is any good, the characters and cultures will be diverse. Everybody from ___ will not be alike and everybody professing ___ will not agree. Although it may not be until book 3+ before the readers meet some of the divergence. Patience is a virtue, when reading a series.

on worldbuilding, and what people think is going on

there is one facet of fantasy worldbuilding that is, to me, the most interesting and essential but i don't see it come up in worldbuilding guides or writing prompts or anything, and that is the question of:

what do the inhabitants of your world believe about how the world works, and how are they wrong? a lot of fantasy media will set up their cosmology, gods, magic systems, planar systems, concepts of the afterlife, &c., and proceed as though the inhabitants of the world know and understand them.

from someone whose entire academic career is focused on studying human culture in various regions and time periods, with a focus on belief systems (religion, occultism, mythology, folklore): that sort of worldbuilding is unrealistic and missing out on so much fun.

people are always seeking new understanding about how the world works, and they are mostly wrong. how many models of the solar system were proposed before we reached our current one? look at the long, turbulent history of medicine and our various bizarre models for understanding the human body and how to fix it. so many religions and occult/magical traditions arise from people disagreeing with or adapting various models of the world based on new ideas, methods, technologies. many of them are wrong, but all of them are interesting and reflect a lot about the culture, beliefs, values, and fears of the people creating/practising them.

there is so much more to the story of what people believe about the world than just what is true.

to be clear: i think it's fine and important for the author to have a coherent explanation for where magic comes from or who the gods are, so they can maintain consistency in their story. but they should also be asking what people in the world (especially different people, in different regions/nations and different times) think is happening when they do magic, or say a prayer, or practise medicine, or grieve their dead. it is a rich vein for conflict between individuals and nations alike when two models of the world disagree. it is fascinating how different magic systems might develop according to different underlying beliefs.

personally, i think it is the most fun to spawn many diverse models of the world, but give none of them the 'right' answer.

(bonus points if you also have a thriving academic system in the world with its own theory, research, and discourse between factions! as an academic, it is very fun to imagine fictional academic debate over the topics i'm worldbuilding. sometimes i will be working out details for some underlying mechanic of the world and start imagining the papers being written by scholars researching it)

[thingsarecomplicated]

Interesting! I knew Judaism was more of a debate-y religion, but it's interesting to see what topics can get debate-y.

Ok, so "sloppy wet" vs. "unforseen" isn't actually that serious. It's more of an inside joke among certain pockets of the faith.

There's a worship song that was popular for years back when I was in middle school/early high school (so, circa 2006-2010 I would estimate) called How He Loves Us.

There are two versions of the song that are basically the same, except for one line. It either goes "so heaven meets earth like an unforseen kiss" or "so heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss."

My church and school exclusively sang it with "unforeseen." So, if I ever visited a worship event or if we had a guest at church or school that would sing "sloppy wet" I would get tripped up. The reverse would, naturally, happen to people from churches that sang it as "sloppy wet." White evangelical churches generally are, um, not good at singing in the same rhythm at baseline. It's literally an argument for bringing back hymnals and exclusively singing hymns. You know how church music is often criticized as being boring and repetitive? I personally like church music, but yeah, it's repetitive. One of the reasons is that without repetition and easy tunes white evangelicals are hopeless at singing in unison (and I say this as a white evangelical myself). So, when some of us think the lyric is "unforeseen" and others think the lyric is "sloppy wet" that can throw off the congregation.

This was kind of a meme for a while in Christian online circles.

People who had grown up singing "sloppy wet" would argue that it was the original lyric and, as such, should be the way it is sung. People who grew up with the "unforeseen" version would (correctly, lol) argue that "sloppy wet" just doesn't sound pretty.

Few if any people took it seriously, but it would get kinda contentious.

TL;DR: I was referencing what was essentially an obscure Christian meme from circa 2010.

Both versions of the song for the curious: Sloppy wet, unforeseen

Ok, I'm curious: In religions other than Christianity, what are the big questions that divide?

As a Christian, I've seen otherwise nice people turn ugly in debates about "Is it ever okay to lie, like if someone's life is in danger?" or the famous "predestination vs. free will" thing or women preachers. (Not to mention "sloppy wet" vs. "unforseen," lol).

I have to imagine other religions have some burning questions that will turn their otherwise nice people into furious debaters, right?