Hamas Launches Offensive Against Southern Israel

[Marduk]

Anyway the reason that @mrttao caller it degenerate is not because alcohol is universally degenerate in all times and all places. It’s because it’s degenerate for Muslims. Muslims are compromising their morality.

Muslims had and still have plenty of conflicts, some armed, about what is the correct Muslim morality, making pronouncements on that from the outside is akin to certain western politicians trying to authoritatively claim that terrorism is not real Islam, as if anyone who cares about "real Islam" cares about what non-Muslim political leader's opinion on that subject is, of all people.
Alcohol abuse is degenerate regardless of whether it's done by a Christian, Muslim or an atheist.
Likewise with khat abuse, no matter what cult, religion or philosophy one subscribes to and what it says about that, due to material and social consequences such activity has.
And i won't stop considering a degenerate pothead a degenerate just because he converts to Rastafarianism and now his religion says it's ok.

I can make an example using Mormonism a western religion. Everyone here thinks their a kooky cult them changing their policies that were made by the founder like no blacks in the priesthood even if it’s racist and stupid has changed nothing. Do you respect the Mormons now for abandoning their traditional beliefs more are you more likely to join?

I don't care for Mormon's conservatism in their religious belief any more than for Muslim's.
It's for their religious leaders and followers to decide what's better for them and their religion alike, to change or not, and in what ways, i won't subscribe to it either way. For those outside, it's a matter of how that change affects their relations with non-Mormons.

 

[Typhonis]

They keep enough of the weird rules that it's too hard to infiltrate for leftists, IMO, so I think they actually believe there was a new revelation from god.

What rules did they keep?

 

[Abhorsen]

What rules did they keep?

The weird underwear, the requirement to act as a missionary, BYU being BYU, tithing, Family Home Evening, etc. There's a lot of them.

 

[Cherico]

The weird underwear, the requirement to act as a missionary, BYU being BYU, tithing, Family Home Evening, etc. There's a lot of them.

I don't really judge them for that my religion has a bunch of seemingly arbitary rules too (mostly to keep you alive in a hostile desert enviornment.)

 

[Husky_Khan]

The weird underwear, the requirement to act missionary,

Please... go on...

 

[King Arts]

Note, they didn't do it because of conformity, at least religiously speaking. The Mormons actually have a policy of continuous revelation, so that God can talk to those in charge and literally change the rules.

They keep enough of the weird rules that it's too hard to infiltrate for leftists, IMO, so I think they actually believe there was a new revelation from god.

There is a differance between continious revelation aka making up new rules as you go along "because uhh God said so." and overturning previous rules that were supposedly given by God. What is God indecisive or doesen't know what to do? It looks really bad when it's done to appease secular culture. I won't even bring up the polygamy with the Mormons but that's one thing. The other is race.

Mormon theology is really dumb it says that in the begining God the Father had physical sex with his celestial goddess wives to make all the souls this includes Lucifer and Jesus, and you and me. Also God the father used to be a human but he ascended to Godhood. By the way Lucifer and Jesus are brothers. So there was a debate going on in heaven for who would be the savior of the world Lucifer's plan was for him to be the savior sacrafice himself and forcibly ascend all of humanity into gods like God the father. Jesus offered another plan where mankind was given free will and only those who pass the test get to become Gods. Jesus's plan won out. Lucifer was angry so he rebelled. The war in heaven had three factions Lucifer and his rebels, a neutral group that did not pick a side, and those who fought with Jesus under God's will. Lucifer lost and after the war God decided to punish Lucifer and those who joined him by being denied human bodies and basically being demons, those who were neutral were cursed to be black, and those who fought with Jesus were rewarded by being made white. The whiter and more Aryan you are the more courageous you were in the war in heaven. That's why blacks could not be part of the Mormon priesthood. Yes Mormons seriously believed this shit until the 1970's.

Also no the rules about Mormon underpants are not "too difficult for leftists to infiltrate" that's a silly thing about as silly as saying leftists can't be Jews because of all the hard rules and dietary restrictions. Again reform Judaism, and Mormonism are the same they flat out reject the writings of their own faith and tradition.

Muslims had and still have plenty of conflicts, some armed, about what is the correct Muslim morality, making pronouncements on that from the outside is akin to certain western politicians trying to authoritatively claim that terrorism is not real Islam, as if anyone who cares about "real Islam" cares about what non-Muslim political leader's opinion on that subject is, of all people.
Alcohol abuse is degenerate regardless of whether it's done by a Christian, Muslim or an atheist.
Likewise with khat abuse, no matter what cult, religion or philosophy one subscribes to and what it says about that, due to material and social consequences such activity has.
And i won't stop considering a degenerate pothead a degenerate just because he converts to Rastafarianism and now his religion says it's ok.

Marduk me and you are not Jews yet we can clearly say that Judaism teaches that sodomy gay actions between men are prohibited. Is that right @mrttao, @Cherico

What you said was as silly as someone saying "No you can't say that about gays! Reform Jews accept gayness!" We have logic we can read and think, we can look at history to see how Jewish authorities have done things and say that a group is going against what their teachings say.

We can do the same to Muslims even if we are not Muslim we can look to see that Islam prohibits using alchol and commentaries from it's scholars say that that rulling is applied to any mind altering substance. If we can show scholars or Imams or Rabbis or priests or whatever that have said otherwise in the past then we can argue it. But if it's a new thing like with the reform we can say they are abandoning their faith.

Also do you consider all marijuana use degenerate even those that only use it once a week on the weekend after work? Why?

I don't care for Mormon's conservatism in their religious belief any more than for Muslim's.
It's for their religious leaders and followers to decide what's better for them and their religion alike, to change or not, and in what ways, i won't subscribe to it either way. For those outside, it's a matter of how that change affects their relations with non-Mormons.

So you do realize that shows that it's a false religion because changing your doctrine to fit the world means you aren't having a message from something greater than man, and it is just a political tool of control that will fall to LGBT and start doing gay marriage and stuff.

 

[Marduk]

Marduk me and you are not Jews yet we can clearly say that Judaism teaches that sodomy gay actions between men are prohibited. Is that right @mrttao, @Cherico

What you said was as silly as someone saying "No you can't say that about gays! Reform Jews accept gayness!" We have logic we can read and think, we can look at history to see how Jewish authorities have done things and say that a group is going against what their teachings say.

Conservative and orthodox, sure, but we both know there are whole branches of it that go not really. I'm not a fan of pretending that there is unity of certain social groups when it's visibly in distant past.
Are Reform Jews still Jews? That's a deep philosophical question that many Jews ask themselves.

We can do the same to Muslims even if we are not Muslim we can look to see that Islam prohibits using alchol and commentaries from it's scholars say that that rulling is applied to any mind altering substance. If we can show scholars or Imams or Rabbis or priests or whatever that have said otherwise in the past then we can argue it. But if it's a new thing like with the reform we can say they are abandoning their faith.

Any change since the beginning of any religion was new at some point. Of course any such new thing, even some very controversial ones, if common enough, will usually have some priests or scholars supporting it, like the infamous lesbian bishop of Sweden carrying a trans flag for example, who naturally support all the progressive current things.

For example some of Hanafi school Muslims interpret the alcohol ban as applying to wine only, and it's a very old rule lawyering example in this matter, but was then banned again in 12th century in most of ME even in that school, but was still recognized in some more isolated from Middle East communities (like many Tatar ones in Eastern Europe).

Khamr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course there's also plenty of Reform Rabbis out there.

Also do you consider all marijuana use degenerate even those that only use it once a week on the weekend after work? Why?

Not necessarily, though once a week may still be a lot. Still, there's some research that it can have long lasting, clearly detrimental effects.

Cognitive effects in midlife of long-term cannabis use - Harvard Health

As more US states have legalized recreational cannabis or passed medical cannabis laws, public perception that cannabis is a harmless substance is growing. But its long-term benefits and ris...

www.health.harvard.edu

So you do realize that shows that it's a false religion because changing your doctrine to fit the world means you aren't having a message from something greater than man, and it is just a political tool of control that will fall to LGBT and start doing gay marriage and stuff.

Is there a major religion that didn't change its doctrine over the years, or made such maneuvering around it that it would make modern corporate lawyers proud?

Secondly, changes aren't made equal. There is a fundamental difference between changes to make the societies of this religion more socially or economically functional instead of being stubbornly detrimental to such things despite knowing better (like Christian branches ending its usury bans), and changes motivated by, for example, eagerness to placate blue haired women on twitter (which leads to what you said).

 

[Cherico]

There is a differance between continious revelation aka making up new rules as you go along "because uhh God said so." and overturning previous rules that were supposedly given by God. What is God indecisive or doesen't know what to do? It looks really bad when it's done to appease secular culture. I won't even bring up the polygamy with the Mormons but that's one thing. The other is race.

Mormon theology is really dumb it says that in the begining God the Father had physical sex with his celestial goddess wives to make all the souls this includes Lucifer and Jesus, and you and me. Also God the father used to be a human but he ascended to Godhood. By the way Lucifer and Jesus are brothers. So there was a debate going on in heaven for who would be the savior of the world Lucifer's plan was for him to be the savior sacrafice himself and forcibly ascend all of humanity into gods like God the father. Jesus offered another plan where mankind was given free will and only those who pass the test get to become Gods. Jesus's plan won out. Lucifer was angry so he rebelled. The war in heaven had three factions Lucifer and his rebels, a neutral group that did not pick a side, and those who fought with Jesus under God's will. Lucifer lost and after the war God decided to punish Lucifer and those who joined him by being denied human bodies and basically being demons, those who were neutral were cursed to be black, and those who fought with Jesus were rewarded by being made white. The whiter and more Aryan you are the more courageous you were in the war in heaven. That's why blacks could not be part of the Mormon priesthood. Yes Mormons seriously believed this shit until the 1970's.

Also no the rules about Mormon underpants are not "too difficult for leftists to infiltrate" that's a silly thing about as silly as saying leftists can't be Jews because of all the hard rules and dietary restrictions. Again reform Judaism, and Mormonism are the same they flat out reject the writings of their own faith and tradition.

Marduk me and you are not Jews yet we can clearly say that Judaism teaches that sodomy gay actions between men are prohibited. Is that right @mrttao, @Cherico

What you said was as silly as someone saying "No you can't say that about gays! Reform Jews accept gayness!" We have logic we can read and think, we can look at history to see how Jewish authorities have done things and say that a group is going against what their teachings say.

We can do the same to Muslims even if we are not Muslim we can look to see that Islam prohibits using alchol and commentaries from it's scholars say that that rulling is applied to any mind altering substance. If we can show scholars or Imams or Rabbis or priests or whatever that have said otherwise in the past then we can argue it. But if it's a new thing like with the reform we can say they are abandoning their faith.

Also do you consider all marijuana use degenerate even those that only use it once a week on the weekend after work? Why?


So you do realize that shows that it's a false religion because changing your doctrine to fit the world means you aren't having a message from something greater than man, and it is just a political tool of control that will fall to LGBT and start doing gay marriage and stuff.

two jews 3 opinions.

There are defiantly Rabbis who say sodomy is against our religion, there are also ones who say it applies to the greek tradition of pedrasty, and there are those who just ignore it and over all opinions are kind of all over the place. I'm a layman and honestly a pretty bad jew so your best off asking some one who sucks less then I do.

 

[Abhorsen]

There is a differance between continious revelation aka making up new rules as you go along "because uhh God said so." and overturning previous rules that were supposedly given by God. What is God indecisive or doesen't know what to do? It looks really bad when it's done to appease secular culture. I won't even bring up the polygamy with the Mormons but that's one thing. The other is race.

Not to the mormons there isn't. Both go the same way. I don't know mormonism well, but one way to interpret it would be "God thought this was the right decision for this time, then that was the right decision for that time". Still making up rules for a dumb idea.

Please... go on...

kek. Act as a missionary.

I don't really judge them for that my religion has a bunch of seemingly arbitary rules too (mostly to keep you alive in a hostile desert enviornment.)

Not judging. In fact, having seemingly arbitrary rules is great for maintaining a religion as it increases the cost of infiltration.

 

[mrttao]

Marduk me and you are not Jews yet we can clearly say that Judaism teaches that sodomy gay actions between men are prohibited. Is that right @mrttao, @Cherico

What you said was as silly as someone saying "No you can't say that about gays! Reform Jews accept gayness!" We have logic we can read and think, we can look at history to see how Jewish authorities have done things and say that a group is going against what their teachings say.

You are correct.
And reform jews are so stupid. just admit you are an atheist looking for a tax exemption

Reform jews have female rabbis doing gay marriages

Also do you consider all marijuana use degenerate even those that only use it once a week on the weekend after work? Why?

I consider all MJ use degenerate because I have seen with my own eyes how heavy users become senile at before the age of 30.

 

[King Arts]

Conservative and orthodox, sure, but we both know there are whole branches of it that go not really. I'm not a fan of pretending that there is unity of certain social groups when it's visibly in distant past.
Are Reform Jews still Jews? That's a deep philosophical question that many Jews ask themselves.

No they are not Jews except in the ancestral sense, that even converts to Christianity or Islam or paganism would be.

Any change since the beginning of any religion was new at some point. Of course any such new thing, even some very controversial ones, if common enough, will usually have some priests or scholars supporting it, like the infamous lesbian bishop of Sweden carrying a trans flag for example, who naturally support all the progressive current things.

For example some of Hanafi school Muslims interpret the alcohol ban as applying to wine only, and it's a very old rule lawyering example in this matter, but was then banned again in 12th century in most of ME even in that school, but was still recognized in some more isolated from Middle East communities (like many Tatar ones in Eastern Europe).

The female bishop is not a real bishop.

As for your example about Muslims ok you convinced me Muslims can still be genuine and have beer or whiskey as long as they refrain from wine. It’s not a strong argument but at least it’s legitimate since it has history.

Of course there's also plenty of Reform Rabbis out there.

They don’t have authority hell even the regular rabbis don’t have as much authority as they think they do.

Not necessarily, though once a week may still be a lot. Still, there's some research that it can have long lasting, clearly detrimental effects.

But the science isn’t settled you said some research. But you do understand that hypocrisy is bad yes people should adhere to the morals they claim.

Is there a major religion that didn't change its doctrine over the years, or made such maneuvering around it that it would make modern corporate lawyers proud?

Eastern Orthodoxy. Muslims are a second place but they do change things to suit them but they are at least more consistent than Catholics.

Secondly, changes aren't made equal. There is a fundamental difference between changes to make the societies of this religion more socially or economically functional instead of being stubbornly detrimental to such things despite knowing better (like Christian branches ending its usury bans), and changes motivated by, for example, eagerness to placate blue haired women on twitter (which leads to what you said).

How do you decide which changes are woke and which are not?
For instance is walking back the claim that blacks were neutral in the war in heaven a woke change by Mormons?

two jews 3 opinions.

There are defiantly Rabbis who say sodomy is against our religion, there are also ones who say it applies to the greek tradition of pedrasty, and there are those who just ignore it and over all opinions are kind of all over the place. I'm a layman and honestly a pretty bad jew so your best off asking some one who sucks less then I do.

Liberal “Christians” make that claim to it’s not accurate and I don’t think those people are Christian or Jewish.
Also I’m not good at following my religion either but I can at least say for sure that some things are definitive. You can’t be a polytheist for instance, I don’t need a priest or scholar for that basic stuff.

Not to the mormons there isn't. Both go the same way. I don't know mormonism well, but one way to interpret it would be "God thought this was the right decision for this time, then that was the right decision for that time". Still making up rules for a dumb idea.

Ok that still looks bad especially when it’s done for what seems like political gain.

But even then there is a difference between “ok black people in prelife were neutral in the war in heaven so they will be punished by not being allowed to be priests in the true church from 1800 to 1970.”

And “What no blacks were not neutral in the war in heaven and whites weren’t brave fighters against Satan. What we said the opposite earlier. Umm.”

Do you see like god can change the rules like ban what was ok before or allow what was banned before. But it’s something else to claim something the church said happened did not happen. It’s like claiming a historical event happened and then denying it happened it’s cult gaslighting.

You are correct.
And reform jews are so stupid. just admit you are an atheist looking for a tax exemption

Reform jews have female rabbis doing gay marriages

I consider all MJ use degenerate because I have seen with my own eyes how heavy users become senile at before the age of 30.

I’ll take your word for it then. I don’t use drugs so I don’t know.

 

[Marduk]

No they are not Jews except in the ancestral sense, that even converts to Christianity or Islam or paganism would be.


The female bishop is not a real bishop.

As for your example about Muslims ok you convinced me Muslims can still be genuine and have beer or whiskey as long as they refrain from wine. It’s not a strong argument but at least it’s legitimate since it has history.


They don’t have authority hell even the regular rabbis don’t have as much authority as they think they do.

But that's the problem with your standard about what's genuine and what isn't. It was new at some point. So was Islam itself. So was Mormonism, Reform Judaism etc. Were they wrong then? If they were wrong or not genuine then, then so they are now, and if they are genuine now, what makes them not genuine back at their origin time, and if they aren't genuine now, why should they be considered genuine x years in the future just because so much time passed?
It would be easier to argue that if we didn't have historical records for these things like it was the case few hundreds of years ago and anything with origins falling into "times immemorial" counting as plausible, but now only some things do and that portion is shrinking.
Will communism be legitimate in 100 years? 500? Will progressive lesbian bishops become legitimate in 1000 years?

But the science isn’t settled you said some research. But you do understand that hypocrisy is bad yes people should adhere to the morals they claim.

The problem is that many people claim "grab bags" of morals, under names like Islam, Catholicism etc. that they do not fully understand, few people do, and sometimes these packages themselves are huge groups of people, of many millions, with several to hundreds different branches that disagree on lesser or greater details and interpretations, sometimes to the point of violence.

Eastern Orthodoxy. Muslims are a second place but they do change things to suit them but they are at least more consistent than Catholics.

Eastern Orthodoxy has over a dozen churches that disagree on things, including whether they even count as Eastern Orthodox, with mind numbing webs of who recognizes who or not.

What is the Orthodox Church? – DW – 10/21/2018

As a rift between the Eastern Orthodox Church's Ukrainian and Russian branches deepens, Dr Ralph Lee, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge contributed to DW's review of the church's history and beliefs.

www.dw.com

Organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How do you decide which changes are woke and which are not?

Did woke people demand it and then it happened? Probably woke. If you monitor the woke, you will know the patterns. No need to complicate things or try to lawyer larp.

For instance is walking back the claim that blacks were neutral in the war in heaven a woke change by Mormons?

Not woke in current understanding, not with the timing, but in part had a lot in common. It was 100% inspired by the secular political climate changes in the society outside the church, no doubt about it, and we know what changes those were, staring with the 60's era counterculture, which one could call proto-wokeism.

 

[GoldRanger]

two jews 3 opinions.

There are defiantly Rabbis who say sodomy is against our religion, there are also ones who say it applies to the greek tradition of pedrasty, and there are those who just ignore it and over all opinions are kind of all over the place. I'm a layman and honestly a pretty bad jew so your best off asking some one who sucks less then I do.

As far as I know, the Orthodox religious stream in Israel is 100% and without compromise against Homosexuality. They even have conversion camps like with some Christian communities.

 

[mrttao]

As far as I know, the Orthodox religious stream in Israel is 100% and without compromise against Homosexuality. They even have conversion camps like with some Christian communities.

They have standoffs.
There are orthodox only neighborhoods. gated communities where they only live.
And during pride parades the gays try to "celebrate" in their streets specifically.
Resulting in tense standoffs because gays can't leave people alone.

 

[Cherico]

They have standoffs.
There are orthodox only neighborhoods. gated communities where they only live.
And during pride parades the gays try to "celebrate" in their streets specifically.
Resulting in tense standoffs because gays can't leave people alone.

This by the way not a good idea.

pissing off large groups of people who just want to be left alone is something you really do not want to do. See northern ireland and unionist marches to learn more.

 

[King Arts]

But that's the problem with your standard about what's genuine and what isn't. It was new at some point. So was Islam itself. So was Mormonism, Reform Judaism etc. Were they wrong then? If they were wrong or not genuine then, then so they are now, and if they are genuine now, what makes them not genuine back at their origin time, and if they aren't genuine now, why should they be considered genuine x years in the future just because so much time passed?

It's an easy standard. And no this doesen't apply to Islam, since the early Muslims were internally consistent with their faith. They had a guy who claimed to be a prophet, and he gave them a book. Everything is new so as long as they really believed it then it's genuine. As to your question about legitimacy, no Islam is not legit, but that is for different reasons.

Same thing for early Mormonism, when they later on changed what the previous prophets said they lost their legitimacy. Same for reform jews no they won't ever be genuine because their founding was built off rejecting their traditions and faith.

It would be easier to argue that if we didn't have historical records for these things like it was the case few hundreds of years ago and anything with origins falling into "times immemorial" counting as plausible, but now only some things do and that portion is shrinking.
Will communism be legitimate in 100 years? 500? Will progressive lesbian bishops become legitimate in 1000 years?

No? Communism isn't a religion. It acts in a similar way, but it's not. There is no higher authority like God or gods to point to that someone is perverting the "faith" so one commies word on their theory is as good as anothers.

Eastern Orthodoxy has over a dozen churches that disagree on things, including whether they even count as Eastern Orthodox, with mind numbing webs of who recognizes who or not.

Those aren't separate churches in the sense that they believe different things, they are in communion. Fights among the leadership for power don't really matter. A Romanian Orthodo believes the same thing a Russian does the same thing a Greek does, etc. There are seperate Church's because they are subdivided that way for ease of language and for administrative control. You go to the Church of your nation/what is closest. But their is no differance in what the priest is saying/doing.

Did woke people demand it and then it happened? Probably woke. If you monitor the woke, you will know the patterns. No need to complicate things or try to lawyer larp.

You can trace wokeness far back since it has roots in civil rights, women's emancipation, democracy, freedom of religion.

Not woke in current understanding, not with the timing, but in part had a lot in common. It was 100% inspired by the secular political climate changes in the society outside the church, no doubt about it, and we know what changes those were, staring with the 60's era counterculture, which one could call proto-wokeism

So letting blacks become priests was woke for the Mormons?

 

[Marduk]

It's an easy standard. And no this doesen't apply to Islam, since the early Muslims were internally consistent with their faith. They had a guy who claimed to be a prophet, and he gave them a book. Everything is new so as long as they really believed it then it's genuine. As to your question about legitimacy, no Islam is not legit, but that is for different reasons.

Same thing for early Mormonism, when they later on changed what the previous prophets said they lost their legitimacy. Same for reform jews no they won't ever be genuine because their founding was built off rejecting their traditions and faith.

If you haven't noticed, many religions do claim divine inspiration for all sorts of further changes in some way or another (Catholics do it a lot and Muslims disagree on which hadith can count as basis of divine law even though none are part of their book and many major divides inside Islam are around those disagreements), so it's not nearly as clear as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

No? Communism isn't a religion. It acts in a similar way, but it's not. There is no higher authority like God or gods to point to that someone is perverting the "faith" so one commies word on their theory is as good as anothers.

So Buddhism is not a religion? Nontheistic religions are a thing, you may be used to theistic ones like your own, but that doesn't mean other options don't count. For all practical purposes they work as a religion.

Those aren't separate churches in the sense that they believe different things, they are in communion. Fights among the leadership for power don't really matter. A Romanian Orthodo believes the same thing a Russian does the same thing a Greek does, etc. There are seperate Church's because they are subdivided that way for ease of language and for administrative control. You go to the Church of your nation/what is closest. But their is no differance in what the priest is saying/doing.

Many mainstream ones do, but some more controversial ones like Old Calendarists (who number in low millions) and Old Believers may disagree.

You can trace wokeness far back since it has roots in civil rights, women's emancipation, democracy, freedom of religion.

No, that's just ultra-traditionalist pet peeves.
One of more specific ways to describe wokeness is as "socialism with American characteristics", analogous to Maoism being "socialism with Chinese characteristics". As such, it's really indirect, transitive finger pointing game to find wokeness in things that existed before major infiltration of US political landscape by socialist movements. So out of these things, civil rights you could make a good point, the rest, not really, unless you mean their current year interpretations, rather than, say, pre-XX century ones, as for example the Americans of that time generally interpreted "democracy" slightly differently than the "our democracy" of 2024 is by mainstream media.

So letting blacks become priests was woke for the Mormons?

I'm not well versed in their history, but quite possible. OTOH wokeness has no monopoly on egalitarian impulses, or even leftism, it's just one of many branches of it, quite successful in current year West compared to others, but in the not so distant past it wasn't the biggest one around. Though judging by lack of further cascading wokeification and entryism, it was not by woke infiltration, but by old leadership's pragmatic political decision.

 

[King Arts]

If you haven't noticed, many religions do claim divine inspiration for all sorts of further changes in some way or another (Catholics do it a lot and Muslims disagree on which hadith can count as basis of divine law even though none are part of their book and many major divides inside Islam are around those disagreements), so it's not nearly as clear as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

That only works under consistency with logic. You Catholics did give the pope new powers he did not originally have yes and that can be consistent. But when you contradict yourself then it's no longer valid. Unless you are going to defend gay blessings as a noble vital part of your Catholic faith.

Religion can make new rules to deal with new issues that were not around in the past, but if the ban what was allowed before or even worse claim that what was banned before is now ok then that is very damaging to credibility without strong argumentation.

For instance Christian church's can make new rules on transhumanism since that was not a thing in the past, but they can't change the rules on gays because that has been settled.

On transhumanism I tend to be against it as messing with God's design is dangerous, however one can make reasonable arguments for it.

So Buddhism is not a religion? Nontheistic religions are a thing, you may be used to theistic ones like your own, but that doesn't mean other options don't count. For all practical purposes they work as a religion.

Buddhism has a higher truth though. The universe/reality is something above humans. In Buddhism your actions will determine how good your rebirth is, and if you are correct and a Buddha you can escape the cycle of reincarnation. That is something you can point to to show that one school is right and another is not.

Wheras for Communists how can you show that Stalinism is more "true" than Maoisim. It's based on the oppinion of each commie. How very protestant of them.

No, that's just ultra-traditionalist pet peeves.
One of more specific ways to describe wokeness is as "socialism with American characteristics", analogous to Maoism being "socialism with Chinese characteristics". As such, it's really indirect, transitive finger pointing game to find wokeness in things that existed before major infiltration of US political landscape by socialist movements. So out of these things, civil rights you could make a good point, the rest, not really, unless you mean their current year interpretations, rather than, say, pre-XX century ones, as for example the Americans of that time generally interpreted "democracy" slightly differently than the "our democracy" of 2024 is by mainstream media.

But Maoism is not socialism with Chinese characteristics. Mao tried to wipe out Chinese history. The modern CCP aren't Maoists since they actually like their nation and history and try to cultivate their old culture.

Also why can you make the argument that civil rights is "commie" but not women's emancipation? After all that was around the same time as socialists after the founder of communism also. It preached for radical change in the west. Why bash on racial minorities but defend muh womens rights?

I'm not well versed in their history, but quite possible. OTOH wokeness has no monopoly on egalitarian impulses, or even leftism, it's just one of many branches of it, quite successful in current year West compared to others, but in the not so distant past it wasn't the biggest one around. Though judging by lack of further cascading wokeification and entryism, it was not by woke infiltration, but by old leadership's pragmatic political decision.

But egalitarianism is the root of communism, and it got it's inspiration from the enlightenment and other rationalist figures.

 

[49ersfootball]

I don't really judge them for that my religion has a bunch of seemingly arbitary rules too (mostly to keep you alive in a hostile desert enviornment.)

Hmmm. Say what ?

 

[King Arts]

Hmmm. Say what ?

The big ones are no pork and circumcising.