Abrahamic faiths and bigotry

[Bob Dixon]

Actions speak louder than words. I can provide much more relevant things such as studies listing which countries in Asia legalized same-sex relationships... and which did not.

And this is even more interesting when we realise that Israel is the country in which all of this Abrahamism originated! The ultimate Abraham-Nation has legalised same-sex marriage. That doesn't seem too bigoted, man.

 

[ChristineES]

Seems like most of you have reading comprehension issues, so let me simplify it with an example. A christian becomes a homophobe - his excuse is the bible, his holy scripture. A Buddhist becomes a homophobe, but he can find no excuse in his scripture. Point being, a 'good' Christian can justify his bigotry using scripture, a buddhist can't. Conclusion: religion itself helps the good christian to hate.

A good Christian would never, ever use scripture to justify hatred. Some people will use any excuse at all to hate people- and some people may use scriptures of any religious text out there, but that is not the norm. People on this thread are making excuses to hate groups of people and/or their faiths, lifestyle, or whatever.

BTW- if an atheist is a homophobe, what does he or she use as an excuse?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But Judaism is homophobic . Buddhism is not.

There is more then enough homophobia to go around.

 

[Chisti]

There is more then enough homophobia to go around.

I am specifically talking about texts that encourage such behavior, not the behavior itself in isolation.

 

[Me Myself]

A good Christian would never, ever use scripture to justify hatred. Some people will use any excuse at all to hate people-

If someone who is not a homophobe but believes 100% that what the bible says is the word of God is the word of God reads:

"If a man lies with a man in the way he should lie with a woman, both men must be stoned to death. The blood will be on their heads"

Then what is he supposed to think?

God literaly says there that homosexuals that are killed because of their homosexuality, DISERVE IT, and that there is NO FAULT on killing them because of it.

That is a hateful text in itself. Sure, you can twist things enough to say God of the bible doesn't want you to kill homosexuals, but it is pretty straigthforward there.

BTW- if an atheist is a homophobe, what does he or she use as an excuse?

The problem is that a good person will not do bad things because of atheism, but a good person can do uffle things because they believe their religion says s/he must.

The verse above pretty straigthforwardly says an homosexual diserves to die. That is exactly what the verse says. It also says that people who worship other gods diserve to die. If this person wants the best for everybody, but thinks his "all loving father" WANTS homosexuals to suffer, he is pretty prone to do wrong because of it.

 

[nameless]

Dharmic societies in Asia are ripe with social strife, even ethnic cleansing and wars.

never heard of it, are you sure you are talking about bigotry?

The only difference is that Abrahamic cultures have been more successful.

in the sub-continent they succeeded because they got help from some local kingdoms, also through some cheap tactics.

They have conquered the earth, have been more daring, creative and were willing to explore the ends of the earth.

the list continues ...
they conducted forceful conversions, persecuted, plundered etc etc .., for the sake of their religion.

 

[ChristineES]

If someone who is not a homophobe but believes 100% that what the bible says is the word of God is the word of God reads:

"If a man lies with a man in the way he should lie with a woman, both men must be stoned to death. The blood will be on their heads"

Then what is he supposed to think?

God literaly says there that homosexuals that are killed because of their homosexuality, DISERVE IT, and that there is NO FAULT on killing them because of it.

That is a hateful text in itself. Sure, you can twist things enough to say God of the bible doesn't want you to kill homosexuals, but it is pretty straigthforward there.



The problem is that a good person will not do bad things because of atheism, but a good person can do uffle things because they believe their religion says s/he must.

The verse above pretty straigthforwardly says an homosexual deserves to die. That is exactly what the verse says. It also says that people who worship other gods deserve to die. If this person wants the best for everybody, but thinks his "all loving father" WANTS homosexuals to suffer, he is pretty prone to do wrong because of it.

It depends on how you look at it. For one thing, it didn't use the word "homosexual" at all- people didn't know about things like this 3,000 years ago (or whatever). If someone is born a certain way, I doubt that God would want that person to suffer at all. God knows that people are born a certain way. I also believe that God is much more merciful than humans. Humans seem to have a problem with people who are different than themselves. And although I believe the Bible is God-inspired, it was still written by men with human prejudices written right in. God-inspired doesn't mean that God wrote it but that God influenced it. (Maybe if it had been written by women, there would be more compassion- just kidding).
Yes, I'll still read the Bible and I will still call it a holy book- but there are some things that need to be taken into consideration.
Don't label all of us by our holy scriptures or by certain hateful people- that is no better than being a homophobe, they way I see it.

 

[Me Myself]

It depends on how you look at it.

Everything is so. That said, you would have to reaaaaaaly narrow your eyes and use a lot of imagination to make up an answer like the one you propose.

For one thing, it didn't use the word "homosexual" at all- people didn't know about things like this 3,000 years ago (or whatever).

all knowing God said, in the bible, that if a man has sex with another man, it is your duty to stone him, and it is both the men fault.

A person who sees the bible as the unchanging word of God doesn't have anything to think about what men did or didn't know.

Homosexual males have sex with other males. God said that is punishable by death, and it is the homosexual's fault.

And although I believe the Bible is God-inspired, it was still written by men with human prejudices written right in. God-inspired doesn't mean that God wrote it but that God influenced it. (Maybe if it had been written by women, there would be more compassion- just kidding).

You just accepted there is prejudice in the bible. I agree with you. The problem is that if Abraham thought that maybe the voic in his head that told him to kill his son was may be filtering what God actually wanted to tell him, he wouldn't have been willing to actually kill the kid.

That's the problem with abrahamic faiths, they are too prone to be all or nothings. At least I can say that for protestant christianity in general, for evangelical christianity, for actually most branches of christianity, and for most of what I have heard from islam.

The book says so. Then God said so. The book doesn't say it has prejudices in it, so all the book must be 100% true. This is the way most christianity thinks.

It's just real. So, if this is the problem of most christianity, and this is a problem with islam too, then it is easy to say that 2 to 3 this is the problem with abrahamic faith in general. All of it? Nope. Just most of it.

Don't label all of us by our holy scriptures or by certain hateful people- that is no better than being a homophobe, they way I see it.

I am not. You need to pay attention to the subject. The subject says that the RELIGION makes people prone to X. That doesn't mean every one of such religion will get X, that means that it is most likely they will get X that if they didn't follow an abrahamic religion.

For example. Crime is way higher in Ecuador than in most european countries. I am an ecuadorian, and I am no criminal, and I obviously know most ecuadorians aren't criminals. I do know that you have more probability of being robbed here in Ecuador than in Europe for example. It is not bigotry, it is a stadistical reality. Ecuador is less safe than europe. Ecuador in general, is not safe, and is getting worst.

So it is more or less the same here: I know you are not a bigot just because you follow an abrahamic faith, but it is most likely that you will become one by follwoing this faith that by following other ones( it's an example, I am not saying literaly that I think you will become a bigot or something like that ), the same way it is more likely to be robbed in Ecuador than it is to be robbed in other countries.

 

[glass]

What 'Me Myself' said is right.

Abrahamic religions are much more prone to bigotry because they are exclusivist.
In fact, any exclusivist religion is prone to bigotry.
One cannot pretend to be nice to people whom one knows is worshiping the wrong god.

 

[Shermana]

I find Atheists to be the most hostile bigots of all, personally.

And the word "bigot" itself is a pointless word. Anyone who holds their opinion as true and all others as false is a "Bigot". The whole racism and discrimination stuff are sub-definitions that are more modern attachments to the initial meaning of the word, which is only and nothing but to mean "A person who holds opposing views in contempt and does not tolerate them".

As far as I'm concerned, practically everyone is a "bigot" in its original, true definition, and Atheists are most assuredly not immune from this by any stretch, they are often the most hostile and intolerant of all. If you hold to any view and defend it against other views and refuse to concede to the opposing view, by original definition, you are a "bigot". Therefore, anyone who holds to any kind of belief and refuses to change their mind and is hostile to opposing opinions is, a bigot. That simple. No way around it.

Intolerance of intolerance, is still "bigotry" by definition.

 

[glass]

I find Atheists to be the most hostile bigots of all, personally.

And the word "bigot" itself is a pointless word. Anyone who holds their opinion as true and all others as false is a "Bigot". The whole racism and discrimination stuff are sub-definitions that are more modern attachments to the initial meaning of the word, which is only and nothing but to mean "A person who holds opposing views in contempt and does not tolerate them".

As far as I'm concerned, practically everyone is a "bigot" in its original, true definition, and Atheists are most assuredly not immune from this by any stretch, they are often the most hostile and intolerant of all.

Intolerance of intolerance, is still "bigotry" by definition.

Would you care to reason why atheists are bigots?
I am almost an atheist (weak theist here) and I think that I am not a bigot as I am willing to discuss and am open-minded to the arguments of other people.

 

[Me Myself]

How do you find atheists to be more "bigots" ?

I have without a doubt heard of atheists biggots, and obbviously, there are, but more than religious? sounds kinda surprising to me.

Miost atheists I've found here are very well balanced people emotionaly speaking. never heard much homophobic, racist or mysoginists thoughts form them.

 

[Chisti]

I find Atheists to be the most hostile bigots of all, personally.

And the word "bigot" itself is a pointless word. Anyone who holds their opinion as true and all others as false is a "Bigot". The whole racism and discrimination stuff are sub-definitions that are more modern attachments to the initial meaning of the word, which is only and nothing but to mean "A person who holds opposing views in contempt and does not tolerate them".

As far as I'm concerned, practically everyone is a "bigot" in its original, true definition, and Atheists are most assuredly not immune from this by any stretch, they are often the most hostile and intolerant of all. If you hold to any view and defend it against other views and refuse to concede to the opposing view, by original definition, you are a "bigot". Therefore, anyone who holds to any kind of belief and refuses to change their mind and is hostile to opposing opinions is, a bigot. That simple. No way around it.

Intolerance of intolerance, is still "bigotry" by definition.

So in your view, anyone who opposes antisemitism is a bigot.

 

[glass]

Unconditional belief in something without reason is bigotry.
Most exclusivist religions are like that.
Just because your deity said that anyone picks up a stone in sabbath should be stoned doesn't mean that it is right.

 

[Shermana]

Would you care to reason why atheists are bigots?
I am almost an atheist (weak theist here) and I think that I am not a bigot as I am willing to discuss and am open-minded to the arguments of other people.

Read some specific Atheist responses on some of the religious threads and let me know if you find some that aren't filled with intolerance, hostility and wholesale dismissal of the belief and the believers itself.

 

[Shermana]

Unconditional belief in something without reason is bigotry.
Most exclusivist religions are like that.
Just because your deity said that anyone picks up a stone in sabbath should be stoned doesn't mean that it is right.

That's not the classic definition of bigotry. A bigot can have a reasoned belief and a justification for their bigotry. The word itself merely refers to the intolerance to other opposing views. I have no problem being called a "bigot" by other bigots, usually most think it means "Racist" or "homophobe" or along those lines, but it doesn't. It's actually kind of a compliment if you're well researched and don't bend under pressure.

 

[Me Myself]

Read some specific Atheist responses on some of the religious threads and let me know if you find some that aren't filled with intolerance, hostility and wholesale (unreasoned) dismissal of the belief and the believers itself.

I had, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I can think of one exception from this forum, but from the rest, they are pretty much balanced. I would dare say there are less balanced religious guys.

 

[glass]

Read some specific Atheist responses on some of the religious threads and let me know if you find some that aren't filled with intolerance, hostility and wholesale dismissal of the belief and the believers itself.

An atheist cannot represent all atheists. Just as a single Nazarene cannot represent the entire group of Nazarenes.

Intolerance and hostility are, of course, bad things.

But we are all entitled to the wholesale dismissal of things which we think are stupid.

Most atheists and agnostics dismiss religious belief, why?

Because religion assumes itself 100% correct.
And that prevents humans from learning more about the truth around us.

 

[Me Myself]

There is text by which all atheists must abide to saying you must treat theists with disgust or something.

Now you cannot say that when refering to christians, jews, muslims, etc etc etc

 

[glass]

That's not the classic definition of bigotry. A bigot can have a reasoned belief and a justification for their bigotry. The word itself merely refers to the intolerance to other opposing views. I have no problem being called a "bigot" by other bigots, usually most think it means "Racist" or "homophobe" or along those lines, but it doesn't. It's actually kind of a compliment if you're well researched and don't bend under pressure.

Let us take your definition of bigotry then.
My previous claim still holds. Why?
Because exclusivist religions think their God is correct and that all others are wrong.