Are the Abrahamic Religions Inherently Authoritarian?

[The_Fisher_King]

Islam probably is always going to outlaw homosexual living permanently, but I know of homosexuals who live in Islamic countries. They seem to have some way of living there though I don't know if they can be Muslims or not.

Just as there are liberal and reform-minded Jews and Christians who are supportive of LGBTQ+ rights, so there are liberal and reform-minded Muslims who are also supportive.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes. The Abrahamic religious are inheritantly authoritarian, and that is a good thing. The whole point of monotheism is that by having one God, there is no disagreement about what is right and what is wrong. You don't have Nazis out there saying, "well, in our way of thinking, its perfectly GOOD to kill Jews."

What?! Maybe we have a semantic difference. From what I can tell the 'Point' of having one God is that there is one, and you can't tell me what is right or wrong nor I you. I think a pharoah would claim ultimate moral authority, but Moses would not. Authoritarian government gives moral authority to people, not mere control. The way I say it God takes that moral authority away from people and observe that it is permanently out of our hands. This has for me huge implications. For example it undermines the means of enslaving people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Except that's precisely what Nazis say. They do think that it's perfectly good and noble to kill jews; that not killing them is condamning the rest of humanity to a perpetual cycle of decadence.

Exactly. So you can't have relative morality. Nuremberg only makes sense if morality is objective.

 

[epronovost]

Exactly. So you can't have relative morality. Nuremberg only makes sense if morality is objective.

All moral system consider themselves "objective or otherwise correct". Morality is relative is an observation of a social fact, not a moral axiom in and on itself.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All moral system consider themselves "objective or otherwise correct". Morality is relative is an observation of a social fact, not a moral axiom in and on itself.

You are mistaken. Outside of monotheism, and what is becoming more common now in the west, is the idea that we ourselves determine what is right and wrong. Thus one person may act differently in a situation than another and both believe they are acting rightly. But in monotheism, God determines what is right and wrong. His is the only opinion that matters. People may disobey, but that is not the same as believing they are doing good.

 

[epronovost]

You are mistaken. Outside of monotheism, and what is becoming more common now in the west, is the idea that we ourselves determine what is right and wrong.

That in and on itself doesn't make these people believe that their morality isn't objective. They determined it, but in an objective and defensible way unlike others who might have determined it in function of pure self-interest or arbitrarily.

Thus one person may act differently in a situation than another and both believe they are acting rightly. But in monotheism, God determines what is right and wrong. His is the only opinion that matters. People may disobey, but that is not the same as believing they are doing good.

You will notice of course, that there is no difference between the two groups. In the end, humans decide because in the end "God's will" is something that express itself in humans and there is no way to clearly and objectively make the difference between "God's will" and "human will" and everybody knows that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That in and on itself doesn't make these people believe that their morality isn't objective.

Most people are not reflective enough to even think about what we are discussing.

 

[epronovost]

Most people are not reflective enough to even think about what we are discussing.

That to me is a fairly arrogant and insulting statement.