Not just historically, and not just some.
Fair.
A noble sentiment, and one preached by many Christian denominations, but there are also fundamentalist denominations that explicitly state one must “accept Jesus Christ as Lord and personal savior.”
Well, that makes sense. Unless you’re elderly, you wouldn’t remember hearing supersessionist preaching. But it was the position of the Catholic Church from its founding through 1965, and was used to justify countless atrocities. So I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but I hope you can understand why we’re sensitive on this point. Since Vatican II the Church has adopted a sort of “separate but equal” theology which recognizes both religions as equally valid. (Yes, Catholics, I know it’s more nuanced than that, just giving the 30,000 foot view)
There are all sorts of Presbyterian Churches, but if you mean the PCUSA, they’ve followed pretty much the same course. Quakerism has some anti-Semitic roots, but the more liberal branches have left it far behind and now even welcome members who identify as non-Christian.
I mean, everything the Church says and does is always more nuanced. We Catholics loves us some fine nuance.
It’s nuance all the way down.
Especially since it is absolutely contrary to canonical Buddhist scripture. Gender definitely does not make a difference as far as enlightenment and the means of achieving it.
What is, disappointingly, true is that some schools of Buddhism in some countries suffer from sexism and make it difficult for women to become fully ordained monks and/or attempt to impose rules prescribing inferiority/inequality for women. Therefore, as @Spice_Weasel confirms, it is not true that any randomly-chosen current Buddhist tradition treats men and women as equals.
Yes, for anyone not familiar with Buddhism it’s important to keep in mind there are something like 10,000 canonical texts and the way it is practiced and what is emphasized can vary dramatically from one sect to another. As the religion spread it also took on characteristics of local beliefs as well. Beyond the organizing principle of the Four Noble Truths, it’s very difficult to generalize about Buddhism.
I dated a Buddhist once. She got me to try meditating with her a few times. She was also a big fan of “visualization.” As she explained it, if you really want, say, a new car, then when you meditate, visualize yourself getting a new car, and eventually, it’ll happen.
I was, at the time, pretty sure that wasn’t how Buddhism worked. Felt a bit like Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda (“The central tenant of Buddhism is not ‘Every man for himself!’”) but it didn’t seem worthwhile to challenge it.
Found out after we broke up that her branch of Buddhism was technically a cult.
Was it Nichiren Buddhism? I got roped into attending a group like that in college. The chanting was cool! But the guy had a really hard-core evangelical vibe and kept saying if you chant you can have anything you want.
One of the noble truths is that desire is the root of suffering, so the idea of focusing obsessively on our desires did not seem very aligned with Buddhism to me.
There’s some weird stuff out there.
Might have been, I don’t recall any more.
Does it? Just referring to them as “new” and “old” makes them unequal. And in my experience, most churches just use the “old” as proof-text for the “new.” Albeit, the gospels take precedence over the rest of the “new” as well, except maybe the Pauline epistles for Roman Catholics & Episcopalians, and Revelation for some fundamentalist denominations that believe the end is in the foreseeable future.
Moreover, I have yet to meet a Christian of any stripe– even people with religious studies degrees– who appreciate the special significance of the Torah in Judaism over other scripture, which is still holy, but not Torah.
There are a few odd Christian sects that still keep Kosher, for example, but yeah, in general 99% of Christianity teach the OT has some good stuff, but it aint the Gospels.
The only “Christian” sect I’ve run into that does anything resembling keeping kosher was mostly set up to recruit Jews to Christianity. (It wasn’t Jews for Jesus, but it was similar.)
That is the only one i know of in America, but I was told there were a couple in the Holy Land. I could be out of date or just plain wrong, of course.
Catholics definitely also give the Gospels precedence over the epistles (and all the rest of the Bible, of either Testament).
I don’t know if I fully appreciate the distinction, but I do know that the Torah is much more significant to Jews than any of the other writings.
And the “Christian kosher” thing is interesting, because while the New Testament does explicitly say that we don’t have to worry about things like “unclean animals”, it also explicitly says that we’re still not supposed to consume blood. And I’ve never yet heard of any Christian sect, denomination, or even congregation that actually cares about that.
Jehovah’s witnesses won’t accept blood transfusions because of that law.
IME, whenever I hear Christian Nationalists, they are always quoting Leviticus, or other Old Testament books in order to justify their ideas about the roles of men and women, or their attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people.
I don’t agree with any of it, and I couldn’t name their churches, but they are definitely very politically powerful, and very vocal “Christian” groups. And they spend a great deal of time and energy on the OT.
And yet Leviticus 25, which commands the periodic redistribution of wealth in order to maintain a classless society, seems to fly right under their radar somehow…all that stuff about being nice to immigrants, too.