Is It Wrong To Hate Abrahamic Religion?

[roger1440]

Funny thing about hate, it not only gives a person direction but also owns a person.

 

[LuisDantas]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized?

As long as one accepts the responsibility for the consequences of that penalization, I don't see anything wrong with that.

And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

... we do not third-party our responsibilty to a supposed God?

 

[Riverwolf]

Hatred towards anything is of course not recommendable and wrong. But there are thousands of reasons to dislike abramix ( well done to me ,I invented this term) religions. Show me one case when abramix brought peace to people

The Christianization of Europe brought about relatively greater peace than they had known before, via instilling a shared cultural unity among the otherwise divided and constantly warring Tribes.

Sure, Europe was still a mess, but things were much more stable than how things were during the Migration Age.

Also, don't forget about the Islamic Golden Age.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Riverwolf : then again, both faiths led to a huge blood price later on, even leaving aside that they ended up demanding blood from each other.

I think it is legitimate to ask whether the alternative historical scenarios would ultimately be any worse.

I stand unconvinced that they would, all the more so when one realizes that both Christianity and Islam became staunch defenders of superstition over reason so quickly.

 

[Riverwolf]

@Riverwolf : then again, both faiths led to a huge blood price later on, even leaving aside that they ended up demanding blood from each other.

I think it is legitimate to ask whether the alternative historical scenarios would ultimately be any worse.

I stand unconvinced that they would, all the more so when one realizes that both Christianity and Islam became staunch defenders of superstition over reason so quickly.

And yet when we consider what things were like before, according to what accounts have survived, I'm not sure we can say with any kind of certainty whether it would be better. Would we still be illiterate, warring Tribes? Likely as not.

I also disagree that they became defenders of superstition "so quickly". When I look at the history of Christian Europe, I actually see the opposite of what anti-religious sentiments often portray. European Christians were the ones who established universities, literacy, higher standards of living, etc. in regions that previously didn't have them at all, or had them to very limited degrees. The Islamic Golden Age more or less mirrored the current Western Golden Age (because it is, for all intents and purposes), in terms of intellectual and cultural output. Most of the "defense of superstition" is relatively modern, in the West being likely a carry-over from the socio-political upheaval that was the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of puritanism.

 

[Unification]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

The way they are literally, outwardly, and fundamentally interpreted is wrong. Certain brainwashed people's behavior is wrong. It leads to a lot of mess. Rather than poke at and pick on , condescend on ones already weak and naive conscience, it's best to spread and teach truth. The more that their territory and religions are tested in condescending ways, the more ways they'll defend at all costs. It is already steering people away, which is good.

It's easy to pick on and the mainstream and dogma and doctrine and myth believing make it so.

All texts have male and female, masculine and feminine principles, consious, subconscious, and ego symbols, mind and meditation symbols, and a lot of truth hidden under the myths.

 

[raph]

If you think, that someone lacks love (like Abrahamics in your opinion), hating is not a solution. When you hate someone, you are against love. Therefore hate can't solve the problem of people lacking love. You should give the Abrahamics some love. That will solve the problem of these people lacking love.

 

[Erebus]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

I don't think hatred is an inherently bad thing. We all experience hatred from time to time as we do with any other emotion, it's a part of what makes us human.

That said, if you're going to hate, hate positively. Can you honestly say that you despise every single facet of every single branch of Abrahamic faith? By all means hate the child abuse, the genital mutilation, the stonings and the witch hunts that are directly or indirectly linked to some strain of Abrahamic religious thought. I'm not going to argue against that. I would however argue that a general hatred of Abrahamic religion is misguided at best.

 

[ether-ore]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

I think the error you are making is that you are suggesting that all disagreeable speech (from the point of view of the target) is hate. To say to a brother, I think you are in error, is not the same as saying I hate you. Yet this is what you are trying to suggest. The brother has a choice. He may reject the comment and walk away or he can be outraged and attempt to silence the speaker. That is the choice of the brother; how he reacts, but that says nothing about the intention of the speaker. The speaker's intention is not hate. Rather, it is an attempt to keep a brother from what the speaker believes is spiritual harm.

If you don't like what people say... walk away. Hate is in the reaction. Don't hate.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I dont mind if u hate us. Its not like i claimed to love homosexuals

 

[viole]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

It depends.

If someone tells me that he loves me but hates my sins, then I am perfectly entitled to respond that I love him but hate his superstition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[samuraiincarnate]

You've gotta be very careful who and what you hate and also why. Sometimes you hate something for the wrong reason and when the time comes you realize you were on the wrong side.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

It depends.

If someone tells me that he loves me but hates my sins, then I am perfectly entitled to respond that I love him but hate his superstition.

Ciao

- viole

Lol u are lesbian?

 

[viole]

Lol u are lesbian?

Did I say "her"? I assumed that you know English, for I am pretty weak with Arabic, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Did I say "her"? I assumed that you know English, for I am pretty weak with Arabic, lol.

Ciao

- viole

No u said if Religious guy would say he hates ur sin(homosexuality). Thats why i asked if u are lesbian, because ur nickname is feminine(no insult intended )

 

[viole]

No u said if Religious guy would say he hates ur sin(homosexuality). Thats why i asked if u are lesbian, because ur nickname is feminine(no insult intended )

Oh ok, lol

Ciao

- viole

 

[RedDragon94]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

Is it wrong to hate anybody gsa?

 

[Kirran]

Show me one case when abramix brought peace to people

If you mean 'adherents of Abrahamic faiths', Martin Luther King Jr. is one good example.

If you mean the faiths themselves, immeasurable numbers of people have found peace and happiness through adherence to an Abrahamic tradition. E.g. my grandmother and the gay rights activist Scott Kugle. Why he was the first person to spring to mind, I do not know.

 

[Sundance]

In answering this question, I personally am going to speak from a Christian perspective. Now, with the introduction out of the way, I'll begin by saying some followers of the Christian religion have done and continue to do reprehensible things, especially in the name of Jesus Christ. This is true. However, Christianity has graced the scene with many a blessing.

1) Christianity gave the world something called a ‘social conscience’, and through it, originated the ideas of ‘social justice’, conscientious objection, and various notable charity organisations.

2) By way of the Torah, the Christian Bible had put forth the idea that all human beings were created from dust, in the image and after the likeness of God, thus were equal. This concept later being incorporated into the United States' Declaration of Independence.

3) The Christian Bible, specifically the King James Version, has contributed more idioms, phrases, and the like to the modern English language than ANY OTHER source of material, including the works of William Shakespeare.

4) African-American spirituals (folk songs created as an expression of the Protestant Christian tradition as understood and practised by African slaves in the United States), had laid the groundwork for the two genres of music that had spawned or had a direct influence upon every single major style of modern popular music.

5) Christians, we gave the secular world our calendar.

6) Roman Catholics have made many a great stride in the fields of visual art and the physical sciences. So, you can thank the Roman Catholic for the bulk of modern science. Don't believe me? Check out this huge slice of information from catholiceducation.org:

“Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents. The scientist credited with proposing in the 1930s what came to be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest. Alexander Fleming, the inventor of penicillin, shared his faith. More recently, Catholics constitute a good number of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Medicine, and Physiology, including Erwin Schrodinger, John Eccles, and Alexis Carrel. ”

So, what am I saying basically? To be hateful of any Abrahamic religion (especially, the Christian religion) is truly to take for granted their contributions to Western society.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram prabhu ji's

I belive that the Gita is perfectly plain on the subject of hatred , ....here deliniated as aversion , ....siting aversion to be a stumbling block on ones path
''There are principles to regulate attachment and aversion pertaining to the senses and their objects. One should not come under the control of such attachment and aversion, because they are stumbling blocks on the path of self-realization'' ...ch ..3 v ..34

going on to say that , ....

''It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous.'' ......ch ..3 v ..35

likewise we should not disturb or unduely criticise others for following their path even if they do so imperfectly , ....or that we might deem their path to be imperfect , ....

idealy one should remain equipoised free from all forms of hatred and aversion , ....

One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, free from all dualities, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O mighty-armed Arjuna ...ch ..5 v ..3