/lit/ - Literature

I remember Hakas. What happened to him?

Does anyone have links to his guides to eastern philosophy and religion?

Because you didn't make one, fucker.

Do we have any pics with religion recommendations?

>>3262551
Where's my Hakas?
He got me into Carbon Based Lifeforms.

>>3262557
pic related

>>3262557
NOt that I know of. Maybe you should make one...!

>>3262553
Okay I'll try to make one today. This should be easy. My father has that expertise. Maybe I can use what I learned from him.

We already have, it´s called fiction

>>3262566
Spyro... Oh, my god, Spyro! Spyro... I like Spyro...

>>3262562
What's wrong with reading about religion?

Put some St Augustine on that mo fo

I mean, it's pretty easy to pick out religion's major texts. All you have to do is use a search engine. There's no hidden books that you'll only hear from /lit/. The Holy Bible (even if it could never be translated correctly and therefore never the "word of god"), The Koran (Qu'ran, Quran, Al-Coran, Coran, Kuran, Al-Qu'ran, Al-Quran; which just goes to show they can't translate the title, so you're fucked if you don't speak arabic. And then there's assholes that complain that you need to read it in like a poem/song format or some bullshit. Which is stupid because if you aren't reading it in Arabic, it doesn't really matter if it's in a poetic format), Torah (see holy bible; Tanakh), The Gitas and Verdas of India, Mythology is easy access, The Book Of Moron-I mean Mormon, L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi books, The Tao Te Ching, The Dao, The writings of Confucius, The Guru Granth Sahib, The Dhammapada, and so on and so forth. It's easy to find and straight-forward, I don't know why we would need something like that in the sticky.

Christianity:
Bible (KJV for beauty of prose and the fact that a lot of literature references it; NRSV for actually being a good translation)
Sayings of the Desert Fathers
Philokalia

>>3263013
I'd say add Zhuangzi along with the Tao Te Ching.

>>3263022
>>3263013
Why wouldn't we include key secondary texts? How about editions of the Bible (so people are taking the Oxford instead of the King James, for instance). Or some mention of the Apocrypha? Or key contemporary writers/works--off the top of my head, Mere Christianity, or Thomas Merton?

In other words, I think there's good cause to have a rec image. There should really be one for each of the Abrahamic religions, and I would imagine there's plenty of fodder for Asian religions as well.

>>3263029
>How about editions of the Bible (so people are taking the Oxford instead of the King James, for instance).

Because it doesn't matter, and the fact that there are different editions and translations on the "the absolute word of god" is extremely ironic. Pick one bible and you are done, most speak from the king james.

As for people writing about faith, it doesn't matter, that's a whole different ballpark. They probably don't matter from any jack and jill, the correct texts are the texts of the religion and that is all that matters. It shouldn't matter what C.S. Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, Your dog groomer, etc has anything to say or do when you've got the bible in your hand and that's the word. If I'm following the LaVey church of satan, I'm going to take my true thoughts from the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, not the kid from a Marilyn Manson concert.

In other words, the actual accepted religious texts are really the only ones that matter to their respective religions.

>>3263054
Friend, this is some of the stupidest shit I've heard recently. Let me count the ways.

1. Someone wanting to read about a religion is not necessarily wanting to follow that religion, but to learn about it.
2. Even among "believers", no--literally NO--religion is monolithic in its interpreration. Differing commentaries matter very much. With regard to the Bible, differing translations matter very much as well. Unless someone is going to learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. in order to read the oldest available texts for each of the books of the Bible, then the whole notion of there being a single "true" text is simply laughable (and it's somewhat ridiculous in that case, too).
3. "In other words, the actual accepted religious texts are really the only ones that matter to their respective religions." So dumb it just needs to be repeated.

Seriously, man. You can't do better than that? You write with an authoritative tone, but what you're saying is just backwards. The only right thing you said was regarding the irony of differing translations of the word of god, and even that is half-baked.

>>3262565
>>3262549
Where the fuck are these from? Like Someone In Love? Good Christ, I've been wanting to see that.

>>3263119
Belay that, just realised they're from Samsara.

>>3263080
>1. Someone wanting to read about a religion is not necessarily wanting to follow that religion, but to learn about it.

Congrats, then what better way then to pick up the actual text the religion actually follows. And if you are lazy, welcome to the wikipedia where they sum it up for you.

>2. Even among "believers", no--literally NO--religion is monolithic in its interpreration. Differing commentaries matter very much. With regard to the Bible, differing translations matter very much as well. Unless someone is going to learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. in order to read the oldest available texts for each of the books of the Bible, then the whole notion of there being a single "true" text is simply laughable (and it's somewhat ridiculous in that case, too).

The holy bible is wrong in translation if you read it in English or Aramaic. They didn't print books back then, they had people write them. The commentaries from distant parties like C.S. Lewis and Thomas Aquinas don't matter as truths for the final word of the Holy Bible. So they aren't on the level of a true religious text.

Differing translations in the Bible don't matter at all unless you are following the religion or attempting something academic. If you want to just read the bible, having never read it before and never growing up with it, you aren't going to say "Well, to get a grasp, I guess I need to read the the 18 versions of the English Holy Bible I can get." That's moronic to think.

>>3263080
>3. "In other words, the actual accepted religious texts are really the only ones that matter to their respective religions." So dumb it just needs to be repeated.

Am I wrong? Does what Peter Popoff have to say about the bible overrule the actual written words of the Bible to you? If it does to you, then please stop talking to me.

>Seriously, man. You can't do better than that? You write with an authoritative tone, but what you're saying is just backwards.

Feel free to ignore me if you don't like what I am saying then, I make it easier by having a trip.

>>3263138
>the actual text

Western chauvinism detected

Other religions (e.g. Shinto) do not all possess holy books in the same sense as Abrahamic religions. Have a look at how much Buddhism has.

>>3263138
>>3263141
>>3263138
Ugh, man.

> Feel free to ignore me if you don't like what I am saying then, I make it easier by having a trip.
And leave you to dispense worse-than-useless advice uncontested? I don't think so.

> Am I wrong? Does what Peter Popoff have to say about the bible overrule the actual written words of the Bible to you? If it does to you, then please stop talking to me.
Yes, you're wrong. Not because C.S. Lewis is somehow more important than the Bible, but because his interpretation and commentary may add to it, elucidate an area the primary text doesn't deal with, talk about the historical context, or any number of things that are simply not there in the ancient myths.

> The holy bible is wrong in translation if you read it in English or Aramaic. They didn't print books back then, they had people write them.
I don't know what the hell you're saying. Printing versus writing with a quill matters in some way? How does one find a "right" translation? If you think there's no such thing as a "right" translation, does that mean that there can't be "better" or "worse" ones for some purposes?

>>3263153
> continued

> Differing translations in the Bible don't matter at all unless you are following the religion or attempting something academic. If you want to just read the bible, having never read it before and never growing up with it, you aren't going to say "Well, to get a grasp, I guess I need to read the the 18 versions of the English Holy Bible I can get." That's moronic to think.
Even if you only read ONE translation, the one you choose can make a substantive difference. If you're more interested in the Catholic Church's view of the Bible, then the King James is for you. If you aren't, but would like to get a little closer to the original text and avoid some of the dogma that developed within the Church over the centuries, then the Oxford is probably a better choice. See? Not confusing at all.

> Congrats, then what better way then to pick up the actual text the religion actually follows. And if you are lazy, welcome to the wikipedia where they sum it up for you.
You seem to think that nothing that matters about a religion is not to be found within its "holy books". This is simply wrong, and you are a moron for thinking so.

>>3263152
I'm obviously not speaking about them then, am I.

>>3263157
> In other words, the actual accepted religious texts are really the only ones that matter to their respective religions.
No, actually that's not obvious at all. It seems like you've been talking out of your ass, and now are trying to cover for it.

>>3263153

>And leave you to dispense worse-than-useless advice uncontested? I don't think so.

Then it's your problem, not mine.

>C.S. Lewis is somehow more important than the Bible, but because his interpretation and commentary may add to it

Add to the supposed absolute and final word of god to date? No. It doesn't overrule the actual written words of the bible.

If you are worried about the history, that's a different topic. I'm talking about the actual religious text and you hinting that C.S. Lewis should be on the same level the Holy Bible proves your invalid opinion.

>I don't know what the hell you're saying.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what translation you pick, the true original written translation doesn't exist. We already have every bible as a not fully correct translation.

> If you think there's no such thing as a "right" translation, does that mean that there can't be "better" or "worse" ones for some purposes?

In what I'm talking, that's subjective.

>>3263154
>>3263154

>Even if you only read ONE translation, the one you choose can make a substantive difference. If you're more interested in the Catholic Church's view of the Bible, then the King James is for you. If you aren't, but would like to get a little closer to the original text and avoid some of the dogma that developed within the Church over the centuries, then the Oxford is probably a better choice. See? Not confusing at all.

And that's pretty exactly one part of what I was talking about. Why are you coming after me for that.

>You seem to think that nothing that matters about a religion is not to be found within its "holy books". This is simply wrong, and you are a moron for thinking so.

If it has a holy text/s, then everything that is said in it should be taken as standings of that religion. Not what C.S. Lewis or Peter Popoff has to say as the standings of that religion. If Peter Popoff tells you in a book he believes it was a blade of grass that tempted Eve in the Garden and not a serpent, you accept that as mattering to the final written word of the Holy Bible?

If you want religious commentary in a wiki, help yourself, but it means nothing to me as a place to find out what the religion actually says if the books are readily available.

>>3263161
If the text isn't available, which my whole point is the texts we have and can read, obviously I'm not talking about it.

>>3263218
Look, guy, you're just not knowledgeable about this, and your ideas don't stand up to the barest critique. You're also not expressing yourself well, which may be why you're appearing to contradict yourself at points. But whatever--I think I'll stop talking about this with you. My last points:

> Then it's your problem, not mine.
It's your problem insofar as you feel compelled to defend your positions. I and others will offer arguments against them. It's discussion...which I wouldn't call a "problem".

> In what I'm talking, that's subjective.
> what I'm talking
Yeah.
> that's subjective
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean the differences aren't important! You apparently don't understand or appreciate those differences. That's a clue that maybe you should stop talking about it.

> you hinting that C.S. Lewis should be on the same level the Holy Bible proves your invalid opinion.
Didn't say that, nor did I hint it. C.S. Lewis is important, but not in the same fashion or degree that the Bible is important.

> If it has a holy text/s, then everything that is said in it should be taken as standings of that religion.
God no. "Religions" don't have "standings". The text does NOT speak for itself. Context is incredibly important. Understanding the history, the various manners of translating words and passages, and even understanding how the same translation has been interpreted differently through the ages--these are critical in understanding a religion.

Again: Christianity != The New Testament. Judaism != The Torah. Islam != The Koran. Please, make a token effort to understand this obvious truth, come up with at least a basic argument why I'm wrong, or just stop.

here's the hakas pic

>>3263285
Thanks!

>>3263262

>Look, guy, you're just not knowledgeable about this, and your ideas don't stand up to the barest critique. You're also not expressing yourself well, which may be why you're appearing to contradict yourself at points. But whatever--I think I'll stop talking about this with you.

You can pretend I'm not, and pretend I haven't, and you can run away, that's all fine. Don't get mad at me because I'm not agreeing with you.

>It's discussion...which I wouldn't call a "problem".

Well when your trying to egg me on, and telling me "Oh that's the best you have?", "Everything you say is backwards" then yeah, it's your problem and not a discussion.

>>3263262
>Yeah.
I say "what I'm talking about" because you keep trying to take what I say and walk a different direction with it.

>Of course it is, but that doesn't mean the differences aren't important!

And there you go, trying to walk what I said in a different direction. You asked me if there can't be a "better" or "worse" translation. I'm saying it's subjective. If you are roman catholic (or want to study Roman Catholicism), you are obviously going to be leaning towards a certain bible, and not others. I wouldn't think this would be hard to understand.

>Didn't say that, nor did I hint it. C.S. Lewis is important, but not in the same fashion or degree that the Bible is important.

So you agree. What's your problem with me saying that what C.S. Lewis says is lesser then the Bible then.

> "Religions" don't have "standings". The text does NOT speak for itself.
Then accept nothing in the written words as anything that has to do with the religion, that's what you're telling me. Bravo, you're an idiot.

------


Is this it? That's all you've got? Are you even trying? Your a sad, sad person. You are so wrong in everything you've said, it's made me simultaneously laugh out loud and face palm. Just do yourself a favor and walk your uneducated ass away with your tail between your legs. Look how easy it is for me to act like a schoolyard brat.

>>3263365
> continued

> Then accept nothing in the written words as anything that has to do with the religion, that's what you're telling me. Bravo, you're an idiot.
Actually you've made that up out of whole cloth. You can re-read what I wrote, or not. I suspect it won't help at this point.

> everything else
You really haven't addressed anything substantive, so I'm not sure what to add. You did repeat your contention that since different translations of the texts are only subjectively "better" or "worse", a rec list shouldn't mention different ones. Perhaps you don't understand that I'm suggesting that a good rec list should instead include mentions of several important translations, with a brief summary of their differences/methodologies/histories, which might help guide the reader of the rec list into choosing one that best fits their reading goals. You still don't think that's a good idea? You still think it should just say READ THE BIBLE and leave it at that?

> act like a schoolyard brat
It's 4chan, friend. Thicken up the skin.

>>3263312
>>3263314

> You can pretend I'm not, and pretend I haven't, and you can run away, that's all fine. Don't get mad at me because I'm not agreeing with you.
I guess I'm still here. I love to argue--but I'm not mad. I just don't like to let poor reasoning stand uncontested. It's too bad, though, that no one else wants to jump in.

To the point of whether you know what you're talking about: please, either find a source or make a reasoned argument to support your claim that someone interested in a religion should only read that religion's primary text, and thus that religion has no place in the /lit/'s sticky. In case you think you've already argued for that, well, you haven't, except to say several times that "it doesn't matter". That's at best a very limited view. I'm going to guess that you think you *are* knowledgeable about world religions, and may have read some of the major religions' primary texts. If that's so, then I'm curious, have you not read any secondary material? If you have, did you really find it valueless? If that's the case, what did you read?

> What's your problem with me saying that what C.S. Lewis says is lesser then the Bible then.
That's not what you said. You said auxiliary text should not be included at all.

You are now aware that the Bible is only "the final word" on God if you're an idiot who actually thinks God wrote it by hand or possessed people to write it or some shit, and thinks that he couldn't have inspired people after those texts were written, or other than those a certain group decided to lump into "the Bible."

So let's assume we're doing this. Shouldn't we also include some seminal works in comparative religion? Anyone know much about that area and could contribute a list?

>>3262565
>VLC

>>3263365
>I guess I'm still here.
So much for "My Last Points". You can't even do that right.

> I love to argue--but I'm not mad.
Yeah, you're mad.

>to support your claim that someone interested in a religion should only read that religion's primary text, and thus that religion has no place in the /lit/'s sticky.
>should only read

I never said that, nor have I implied you should only ever read the holy text if you are interested in religion. I've only ever said the best information for the religion would be from (if available) that religion's holy book. If you don't know what my thoughts are, why are you even talking to me. And why should I keep talking to you when you can't even understand.

>That's not what you said. You said auxiliary text should not be included at all.

Except that's exactly what I've been saying. I know I've said more then once "X doesn't over rule the written word of the bible"

I said the writings of C.S. Lewis and the like is a different thing from the actual holy books and shouldn't be included in a religious major text sticky post. If you want C.S. Lewis and such I'm saying make a different sticky post.

>>3263367
>Actually you've made that up out of whole cloth. You can re-read what I wrote, or not. I suspect it won't help at this point.

I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. Glad to see me twisting you around like you have been trying to me worked like a charm.

>everything else
Give people the information and let them decide what they want. If they want Roman Catholic, which I assume would be in the sticky, give them the bible that fits Roman Catholicism. As far as the general idea of "I want to read the bible", I'm saying don't read all of them to find out "well shit, I like this translation better", just pick one- probably KJ- and that's all.

>It's 4chan, friend. Thicken up the skin.
Hey, if you want to act like a toddler, go ahead. Just pointing it out. (and magically, you matured a bit after I pointed it out)

>>3263415
Take it up with a believer of that god.

>>3263540
No one is saying to make a sticky. They're saying to make an entry for the wiki, aren't they?

Also, you really, -really- need to know the historical context of a religious text to form a correct interpretation.

>>3263546
You're assuming I'm not a believer of that God.

>>3263545
>They're saying to make an entry for the wiki, aren't they?
http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading

We are talking about this, so making a post in the sticky.

>Also, you really, -really- need to know the historical context of a religious text to form a correct interpretation.

That's a different thing that should be away from the religions major texts. I don't know why I have to keep saying this.

>>3263547
I'm not assuming your anything.

>>3263540
Just re-read your own posts. You've said

> I mean, it's pretty easy to pick out religion's major texts.
> [...]
> It's easy to find and straight-forward, I don't know why we would need something like that in the sticky.

In other words, no reason to have a religion section. I contested this in part by saying that secondary texts are of interest as well, and thus the sticky should (a) indeed have a religion section, (b) have notes on multiple translations, and (c) have secondary text. You've argued against all three of these.

At the very least, you fail at clarity. You say things that you appear not to understand later that you've said. Then as a result you contradict yourself.

I think it's time to let this discussion die. You voted against a religion section in the sticky, and I voted for it. I hope OP pursues this, because I agree with him that it belongs there and could have much more than a simple listing of the major primary texts for the world's major religions. Can we leave it there?

> Other shit you said
Pointless again.

>>3263557
You are correct that it's easy to find the core religious texts of a religion.

Therefore, by virtue of the fact that people want to make a recommendation pic for religious texts, we're talking about something more extensive than just the very core works.

>>3263557
>We are talking about this, so making a post in the sticky.

4chanlit.wikia.com is referred to as the wiki. That's where a section would be made.

If anyone is thinking of doing that, please work on it on the new version of the wiki. I don't know why people are still correcting the old version when I have it saying right at the top **** new version!! *** and shit.

http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading/Non-fiction

Is where it would go.

>>3263559
>Your post
Blah-blah-blah. I'm saying if a sticky is to be made, keep the religions major texts away from the commentaries because the religions major texts are more important and should stand alone. If you couldn't understand that through this whole thing, you are a real fucking moron who is clinging to pebbles now.

>>3263542
Friend, you haven't upset me in the least. I was certainly rude to you, and despite what you think I've continued to be so. That's because I think you're stupid, and I am mocking you for your stupidity. But that fun only goes so far...since you aren't accompanying your wounded personal responses with anything that's interesting and on topic, I think I don't really have anything left to say to you.

It'd really be nice to start talking about what would go into the wiki. Please go away so people who think it can be there can discuss it.

I don't have a picture, but here's Judaism's literature in a nutshell:

Tanakh:
>Torah or the 5 Books of Moses is seen as the most authoritative text in Judaism with divine inspiration.
>Nevi'im or Prophets are a set of 8 books written which covers the narrative of the Jews entering Israel all the way up to Babylonian captivity.
>Ketuvim or Writings are the rest of the books in the Tanakh.

While Torah is seen as divinely inspired and authoritative Nevi'im and Ketuvim are not necessarily divine within themselves. They were canonized some 2400 years ago at a great assembly because they were seen as timeless classics that help reinforce the ideas of Torah. For example, the Talmud specifically talks about how Song of Songs was almost thrown out of the canonization because of how sexual its verses could be!

>>3263575
You didn't even succeed in making that basic point. Even now you're contradicting your earlier posts. "Reflexive reading comprehension"--I wasn't previously aware such a thing existed.

>>3263581
(Babylonian) Talmud:
>Mishnah
The Mishnah is the codification of the Oral Law received at Mt. Sinai from G-d to Moses and all the Israelites. There was never a need for codification of Oral Law before because of it was nearly impossible to change a custom with all those practicing it living within one place. A custom could not be lost because your neighbor next door would know exactly what it is and his neighbor and his neighbor and the custom would not be told differently. Judah the Prince redacted the Oral Law in his Mishnah because the Jews were being expelled from the Land of Israel, and thus the Oral law needed to be written down as to make sure it wasn't forgotten.

>Baraita is basically a set of tannaitic statements that the later part, the Gemara, will cite to either support or refute the statements made by the Amoraim.

>Gemara is a critical analysis of the Mishnah made by many, many Rabbis of the time It often presents two arguments and shows why whether one argument is supreme and why one is faulty or why they're both faulty. Its format is basically just a list of conversations that many Rabbis have between each other and the discourse that occurs because of it.

This makes up the Talmud and while it is authoritative according to basically any Jew (except Karaites), it is only as authoritative as the Torah allows it to be. Torah is the set of books that is completely authoritative and everything else is commentary. They only get their authority from the Torah and they themselves cannot contradict, add, subtract, or change anything that is found in Torah. Basically, if any work makes an authoritative statement of what you should do and what you should believe, then it has to trace back (its statement and its right to make such a commanding statement) to Torah or it's not authoritative.

>>3263583
>Are Rabbis today authoritative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAmN2FLsnSQ

>Okay, that's all fine and dandy, but why should I believe in your faith?
At its core, Judaism requires a faith in Torah and everything it says; but, there is a neat little lecture on a rational approach to Judaism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA

>I want to study Torah! Where do I start?
Pick yourself a good translated Torah, preferably with the Hebrew counterpart next to it. Also, make sure you get some commentary, because there is critical discussion of pretty much every chapter in the Torah.

This web version will do well for beginners, but I certainly encourage anyone to look at other commentaries along with Rashi's. Some great commentators include Rambam, Rashbam, et cetera:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true

Need I add anything more?

>>3263563
But what I said about how it's easy to find the text doesn't mean instantly "A religion sticky is not to be made". If a religious sticky is to be made, keep the religious major texts separate from the other stuff.

>>3263577

>>3263582

>>3263575
While religious major texts are the most important, they shouldn't stand alone (at least in Judaism) because Torah itself gives authority for commentaries to be made.

>>3263566
and here, I went ahead and made the bare bones outline for you guys:

http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading/Non-fiction#Religion

I made it Western and Eastern, but anyone is free to change that. Hopefully you should be able to figure out how from the code.

>>3263588
And these commentaries are important. You cannot read the Torah by itself and expect to understand even a fraction of it. Well developed commentaries that have been discussed by great sages from all across the world is needed because they kind of lay the foundation of how to do exegesis. I mean, if you want to rediscover gravity, that's fine with me; but, it would save you time to just take Newton's word for it.

>>3263593
Then make a sticky for commentaries after the major texts and stop complaining to me.

>>3263600
I'm not complaining to you, I'm just saying commentaries are super important and vital to Judaism at least. I just wanted to throw a word in, not become part of the discourse.

>>3263589
Thanks, Anon. I'll try to add to this later today.

On another topic

>>3263586
>>3263587
>>3263590

I think I finally understand why people hate tripfags. I used to be one, but after this juvenile display I have to wonder whether the "identity" this kid has constructed isn't leading him to show his ass in ways he otherwise wouldn't.

Bullkowski, please shut up now. The only contribution you made was in your first post, and there only if we remove your first and last few sentences.

So, Bullkowski, does this work for you?

>>3263607
Are you mad bro? You mad?

>>3263635
Perfectly fine with me. As long as you aren't lumping C.S. Lewis right next to the bible.

>>3263642
Fine, but I'm counting the Apocrypha as part of the Bible.

Check out the Western Images part, I added Torah.

>>3263650
Now that I think about it, shouldn't Judaism be an Eastern religion?

>>3263659
Please be joking please be joking please be joking

captcha: Anondit mechanical

>>3263662
The religion was born in the Near East and it was centered there for a good long while. Why would I be joking? I get it, Westerners adopted Judaism in a different form, but you can make the argument that even Christianity was originally an Eastern religion.

>>3263667
Yes, you could say that, and that's why it's silly to consider it an Eastern religion. Christianity and Islam are both "Eastern" as well--only nobody thinks of them that way, and you're not going to get traction on relabelling them in this context. Why don't we just stick with the standard designation?

>>3263671
Isn't it kind of a historical bias to describe them as Western Religions though? To be honest, Western religion was Greek, Roman, and some Germanic pagan religions. They didn't give birth to what we know today as monotheism. Just saying, it's kind of misleading.

>>3263695
It is, indeed. But the notion of East/West/Orient/Occident, the region called the "Middle East", etc., has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. If we're going to worry about that, I'd recommend you drop the East/West terms altogether here. Can we group the three Abrahamic religions? And then the branches of Buddhism? And then have "other" for Hindu, Shinto, etc.?

>>3263705
Where would Sikhi go? It's its own religion but was heavily influenced by Islam and Hindu alike.

>The Brick Bible
Huehue.

>>3263708
It'd be going back to a geographical designation, but are Buddhism/Hinduism/Sikhi ever called jointly "subcontinent" or "Indian" religions, or something like that?

I'd keep Islam with Judaism and Christianity because of the shared text though.

>>3263705
>>3263720
Perhaps we should focus on the actual books to include, and mess with the grouping later.

>>3263732
We should include "The Mystery of the Druids."

I've been working on an Islam chart for a while now, on and off. Since /lit/ seems particularly interested in religion these days, I'll try to finish it up and make a thread here soon.