Thanks for letting me know so that I don't watch it twice. (I might sometime.)

26:35 Map of india shown here is wrong😡 Atleast dotted lines are expected in disputed area

​@@revanthreddy7878 I'm not going to show every single disputed region in the world on a tiny map that is meant simply to show which world religions are followed where. What I've used is the standard UN map.

Already bought thx. Excited for looking at it for hours 😂😮

Love the videos and enjoy all the work you put into these videos!!

I think Matt's point is rather to show the process of development "what came out of what" than to show a current day structure. You can deffinitly say that all eastern orthodox churches are of hellenistic origin. But I get your point that "greek orthodox" would be the wrong term. I'd use something like "byzantine orthodox churches" maybe ? And than add all the orthodox churches we have nowadays below. Like greek, russian, romanian, ukrainian etc. And about "Roman catholic"...it's actually a used term again. The pope uses it, you can find it in official Vatican papers and even some countries got that as religious affiliation in their passports. You can also say that all catholic churches AND all other christian churches came out of the roman catholic church. But I do get your point that not all catholic churches are roman catholic and that the modern Roman catholic church is just one of the catholic churches...however...the Vatican would see that very differently^^ Kinda hard to show all that in a flow chart to be fair.

@@fydofire Certainly to Matt's point, which is well appreciated. But calling a church by its proper name is just good form - and more accurate. Using "Roman" for Catholic or "Greek" for Orthodox, unless you specifically and only mean the local churches of Rome and Greece respectively, is inaccurate. No matter that some people not from those churches like to use those terms for their own personal theological preferences, it is rather easy to check the official name of a Church and get it right, by looking at authoritative documents. There is no reference, for example, to "Roman Catholic" in the documents of Vatican II, the Catechism, the Codes of Canon Law, or any papal encyclical in roughly 75 years, and even then it usually meant only the Latin Church. That's the official Vatican position - "Catholic", not "Roman Catholic".

The reason why the Roman Catholic Church is referred to as "Roman" is that it is headed by the Bishop of Rome and they are in communion with him. In fact all Nicene Christians are _by definition_ part of the one one holy catholic and apostolic church *ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία* . The Holy See cannot lay claim to that name. Therefore, we can call those in communion with the Bishop of Rome many things, but _Catholic Church_ is very wrong.

@@revcrussell I understand that is why some people - mostly Anglicans - use the term incorrectly, but it remains incorrect. The church of Rome is just one of over 3000 in the Catholic communion. The Latin Church, of which the pope is primate/patriarch, is just one of 24. The Roman Rite is just one of several Rites. No more can the Catholic Church be reduced to Roman than the Orthodox to Greek or the Anglican to Canterbury or the Lutherans to Wittenberg.

AS A CHILD I ATTENDED THE LATIN MASS AT OUR ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, ST. RAPHAEL IN N.O., LA. AND MY GREEK BROTHER-IN-LAW MARRIED MY SISTER IN A GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH, SAME CITY. CERTAINLY THESE THINGS WERE REAL, AND I THINK THEY STILL EXIST. CLARIFICATION OF SPECIFIC BRANCHES IS ENTERTAINED ONLY BY THOSE THAT CARE. AND THOSE THAT DON'T CARE, NEVER CLARIFY OR KNOW.

its clearly a religion, actually a very strict religion with relationship & connections among Gods, and that has God worship in the very center with strict ritualistic order! the only thing is you will get what you deserve to get no matter you worship or not, in this life or the next depending on your Karma.

bro dont be fooled pls go check out on the video (my ashray) akhir krishna hai kon beccause there isonly one god and thats krishna and it is proved bro pls if you want to know about our dharma as a hindu brother i am telling you this

Basically pooping on the street

From the description: "Note: Christianity is not covered in this video as we have a separate video on the family tree of Christian denominations, which you can watch here: (Video-Link)"

@@PrinzDerNarrenthat's just a composite of his series. He suggested a video for the simplified version in this chart, as well as the esotericism section.

Fun fact: Sikhs constitute a higher percentage of the population in Canada than India

Where did you buy them? $40 each is way too high. We sell them for $25.

@@UsefulCharts- That’s probably including shipping costs.

Even with shipping to the UK, it wouldn't be that high.

You can't really combine all the religions because their foundational components are contradictory. For example the foundational component of Christianity is that God came to our world in human form to give us the opportunity to be lifted from sin. The foundational component of Islam is that Muhammad was the final prophet who delivered the perfect word of God (who said Jesus was not God). You cannot even be partially following either religion without accepting those concepts and both cannot simultaneously be true. To remove those concepts would not be to combine the religions but to strip them down so arbitrarily that it would be insulting to suggest a connection to either. And that's just two of them.

They are on the chart as well.

Mat.. my sincere apology.. I missed them. I was triggered by your comment in your video describing the oldest religions.. would it be better to have the African , Australian, etc. religions at the top of the chart to signify their age as coming before the other world religions.. but again, I'm so sorry for my incorrect assertion.. love your work.!

Will keep it mind for the next printing.

Well, for one thing, Sikhism does not have as many divisions as other religions. The vast majority of Sikhs simply follow the dominant branch. It also hasn't been around as long and hasn't produced other spin-off religions like Judaism has. Finally, my main target audience for my posters is actually the US, where Judaism is the second largest religion.

@@UsefulCharts I see…makes sense 👍

According to "2020 PRRI Census of American Religion" Christians make up 70% of the US, 23% are unaffiliated, and Jews are tied with Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Latter-day Saints at 1%. (The last two being categorized as Christian by the study, I included to demonstrate the diversity of religions tied for 3rd in the US.) Edit: And also, as I've said before, since the whole thing is informational/educational, shouldn't the emphasis in the target country be that which is least well-known, not that which is most common?

@@UsefulCharts but it could have been explained in the same away as Jainism

All man-made religions are basically the same....do good, don't do bad and hope to achieve salvation. But God's ways are not man's ways. God sent His Son to achieve salvation for us. Eternal live and the forgiveness of sins is a free gift to all who believe in Jesus Christ and His sacrificial death, burial and resurrection. (John 3:16) (Romans 5:8) 🙂

Because He is absolutely clueless about dharam and he is labeling dharam as religion which is absolutely wrong. People need to understand dharam of East has nothing to do with abrahmic religions. And these intellectuals never even tries to understand dharam. There is no concept of 'The God' in dharmic cultures. According to dharmic teachings the creater is residing in each and every being of earth, creation and creater are one and same thing whereas in religion there is some God sitting up somewhere and dictating humans how to live. So how can anyone compare these religions and dharma at all. There is no concept of prophets in Dharam but anyone can know itself in and out. Religion is believing and dharam is seeking. These are two opposite ways of life. There is no comparison of religion and dharam at all. You follow commands and dharmic people seek life.

​@@Manjaswal1 Different people have different defining characteristics for what they consider a religion. The terms you apply to it aren't common in the scholasticism of world religions. I'm not so fussed about this part. That said, I do wish more Westerners who try to teach about Hinduism had a better philosophical understanding of it so they didn't try to teach it as if it were a Western religion. For example, it's common to talk about _trimurti_ and their consorts (without understanding that the "wife" of a deva is that deva's _power/śakti,_ i.e. they are both aspects of the same) as if that is the most important point of distinction between us. It's like they think we disagree on "which god is the most powerful" instead of "different Hindus use different names for the Supreme, without disagreeing on what it is in essence." They also misunderstand the role of a deva as the personhood of that deva. But, IMO, one of the things that most distinguishes various Hindus is metaphysics. For example "monism vs dualism": Bhedabheda/Dvaitādvaita, Advaita & Shuddadvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, and Acintya Bheda Abheda. I think that _marga_ are individualized instead of proscribed by the larger community also confuses Westerners. To really describe all the variation in Sanatana Dharma you need a multi-dimensional matrix, not just a simple table. So, most people just skip the confusing parts as if they aren't important for understanding.

@@RubelliteFae exactly they skip that because they don't wish to learn about as it is not fitting in the small box of thoughts. And what does that ism means? If you can explain it to me. Why it's christianity and not Christian ism if there is Hinduism? Let me explain it in brief according to dharam( which has nothing to do with religion) creater and creation is one and the same thing but according to religion the creater The God is different from creation and that that God has a purpose for the creation but Dharam says it's just a play which is repeated. Shakti is feminine and shiva is masculine and they are the same thing. It's not that hard to understand if one really wants to know. But maybe rigidness of belief that don't allow a believer to even accept that there may be some other logic to the creation. Seeking is opposite to believing and when we have no logical answer to something we tend to believe it. My way or high way is what today the meaning of religion where if we can't answer to a question chop off the questioner and this is what we are witnessing today. But if we don't want to putt some effort to understand the other person we should not label that person also to our definition. I just want to say to say to all the abrahmic scholars that please don't tie dharam with the rope of religion. They should only focus on religion if dharam is not there cup of tea. Religion has a God and dharam is a Godless cultures and it's not very difficult understand according to me

@@Manjaswal1 I think it's normal for people to purposefully overlook that which they find confusing & overwhelming. As for -ism, I think it's because "X-ism" means "taking the X stance" or the "taking X side of the debate." For most of the West's history Christianity was the only thing permissible, so there was only the Christian view and "everything else." So there was no reason to call it an -ism back then and that simply persists today. That's just a guess though. Certainly it's different in different langages. You said, "according to religion the creater The God," but that's only based on your specific definition of religion, which as I said academia doesn't use the same definition you are. Personally, I think since "religion" has so many different definitions I try to just not use the term at all. Also, not all Hindus agree with your stance that "creater and creation is one and the same thing." So, you are taking a position in the name of Hinduism that not all Hindus take. The point is that we all have biases and recognizing these helps to understand why people have the thoughts & behaviours they do. (For example, understanding the history of the West's "exoticism" of the rest of the world [and lack of incentives to do otherwise] helps explain why even today with the world more interconnected than ever, Westerners still fundamentally don't understand or misunderstand various Eastern philosophies.) You also said, "it's not very difficult understand according to me." I'm willing to bet that you grew up in a culture in which dharmic thought is above 5% of the population. In other words, of course it's simple for you. However, in the US Hindus are ~0.5% of the population. So, perhaps it's healthier to be glad about attempts of Westerners to learn more, like this video, even when they don't go deep enough and fundamentally misunderstand the content & purpose of it. And, though it's perfectly reasonable for a person to wish to be understood (or better understood), we are not evangelical. Other people's mistakes aren't ultimately my responsibility or duty. My focus should be on my own development.

@@RubelliteFae sorry but all the dharmic people who know their culture creation is no different then creator, and I am excluding all the Indians who are inspired by Western influence, that's why they will bend down to trees, rivers, ants, sun,moon and what not because for them source of creation is there in everything. Left liberal people from dharmic background are excluded. And how we say dharam has X sided view of anything when inclusiveness is the nature of dharmic people?

I mention several such scandals in the Christianity video.

@@UsefulCharts i missed that, thank you for the reply. i have also seen quite a few youtube videos about abuse in some ultra orthadox jewish sects

Because he doesn't know a lot about it. Just look at the Chinese religion section. Also, Shintoism doesn't have the global influence Judaism does.

Before Christ existed, which means everything before Christianity was created

It means before common era - BCE was created for non-Christian groups that do not worship Jesus.

@@chitrali3115 Wong, it means Before Common Era or Before Current Era.

@@smileyShiiZniTZ Oh okay, I was told that by a Christian lol

@@chitrali3115BC stands for “Before Christ” so that may be why you got confused. “BCE” is basically the same thing but secularized to “Before Common Era”

There is no possible connection. One religion is Brahmic and one is Abrahamic.

@MistahUnknown except the fact that kingdom of Mitani had indo-Aryan connection, and similarity to Sanskrit. A kingdom that included Haran. In north mesopotamia. And pretty much bordered Canaan. I am not saying they are necessarily connected, but we never know what is possible.

@@MistahUnknown what is brahmic 😂😂brahma is not supreme god in hinduism

@@ram.ram.saryane8121 Dharmic*

@@Manjaswal1 the school of Buddhism I belong to, the Kwan Um School, we don’t care what you believe, we care about practice. Practicing dharma is the most important.

@@davidmendoza1300 @davidmendoza1300 that's what I said dharam don't care in believing and you are doing your practice to attain and achieve moksha and not because you are commanded to do so. This believing in somebody sent by some God sitting upthere is nonsensical notion. Because you believe something only because you don't know what it is so easy way to escape is create some fairytale and believe in it. That's what i said

"Religion" is a very problematic word for every so-called religion. Unlike what you claim, for most "religions" the important thing is practice, not belief. Really, only Christianity is hyper focused on belief. So don't get so caught up on my use of the word religion. It's just a commonly used umbrella term that means different things in different contexts. It's also very clear that you didn't even watch the section on Hinduism. Because the very first thing I explain is that most "Hindus" don't consider Hinduism a religion but rather a Dharma. So, I made your point for you. I also explain both the traditional view of the origin of Hinduism according to Hindus as well as the secular view. So stop making false assumptions about me. I happened to have lived in South Asia for 10 years and have learned Hinduism and Buddhism from the people who practice them, not from Western books.

@@UsefulCharts I appreciate all of your work and I do believe it’s very accurate and well thought out. I just wish you went into more detail about the schools of zen. Soto vs Rinzai. I don’t believe there was mention of Thích Nhất Hạnh or other famous zen masters. But don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good overall presentation.

1. It's impossible to appease everyone, especially when generalizing what each sect of a religion does and has different 2. Your view of Judaism is very skewed, consider learning more about it and what Jewish people believe and practice.

@@woodhousii2445 I didn't say what my understanding of Judaism was. I characterised what the video maker said it was in contrast to Christianity.

Well, the word denomination tends to give the idea of a more firm division. For example, within Christianity, members of one denomination would seldom attend a church belonging to a different denomination (unless, of course, they are non-denominational). In contrast, within other religions, the differences are far less important. It also simply boils down standard terminology. I'm other religions, words like "school" or "branch" are more often used.

@@UsefulCharts thank you!