Is It Wrong To Hate Abrahamic Religion?

[gsa]

Is it wrong to hate anybody gsa?

I am not talking about hatred of people. I am talking about hatred of ideas. Very, very bad ideas, and practices associated with those ideas. As I've said, we've learned from Christians that we can separate hatred of these abominable ideas and practices from the people that practice them, or believe them.

Anyone who affirms the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" has no reasonable basis for objecting to this.

 

[ChristineES]

On one hand, you can hate whatever you want but on the second hand, why would anyone hate something that is inanimate. Something like religion can't be good or evil as it does nothing by itself. People who follow any of those religions can be good (by human standards only, in my opinion), they can be evil, they can be apathetic, etc.

By the same token, I couldn't love my religion or faith. I can, however, love God (and I do).

 

[Yerda]

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 find it acceptable, but mistaken.

I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans?

I don't believe so.

Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized?

What do you mean by penalised?

 

[Shad]

If it were inherently depraved, then I would expect to see all followers of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, and all others to act in similarly depraved manners.

You forget divine command theory. Go read about the conquest of Canaan and the wars of Israel. There are verses commanding the slaughter of children and whole sale genocide. For many since God commands this these actions are acceptable and moral. So I would put forward if commanded to do so many people would willingly slaughter others. So while not outwardly depraved on a daily basis I am wary as the potential of committing these acts once God, or people are convinced indirectly, commanded to do so. This is one reason why believers of this type of divine command theories are easily convinced to slaughter people due to their religion. I hate this part of these religions. The good parts do nothing to remove this fact.

The above is putting aside such verses and ideas are rationalization by humans for their actions.

 

[Politesse]

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?

If your thought-paths strongly resemble those of people you consider depraved and deeply immoral, you should probably be worried about that.

 

[Riverwolf]

You forget divine command theory. Go read about the conquest of Canaan and the wars of Israel. There are verses commanding the slaughter of children and whole sale genocide. For many since God commands this these actions are acceptable and moral. So I would put forward if commanded to do so many people would willingly slaughter others. So while not outwardly depraved on a daily basis I am wary as the potential of committing these acts once God, or people are convinced indirectly, commanded to do so. This is one reason why believers of this type of divine command theories are easily convinced to slaughter people due to their religion. I hate this part of these religions. The good parts do nothing to remove this fact.

The above is putting aside such verses and ideas are rationalization by humans for their actions.

I'm well aware of these. Years ago, I tried reading the Book of Joshua. Twice, in fact. I couldn't. It was just too horrible. Makes the stuff in the Song of Ice and Fire books look like Sonic SatAM.

These verses, however, are not the be-all, end-all of these religions. I've not forgotten these verses at all; I'm saying that they're not as influential human behavior as you might expect, any more than that stupid "video games cause violence" thing. In both cases, one reinforces pre-existing conditions which helps drive people into violent behaviors, but such behaviors would likely have occurred anyway in said communities and/or individuals. Europe wasn't all sunshine, rainbows, and flowers before Christianity came along and sent our ancestors on violent crusades; European Tribes had been fighting each other for centuries before the first Christian missionary ever went beyond the Roman frontier.

And then there's Charles Manson who was told to kill people by Beatles songs.

To me, your argument sounds rather akin to "kitchen knives allow for the potential for families to kill each other."

 

[Shad]

I'm well aware of these. Years ago, I tried reading the Book of Joshua. Twice, in fact. I couldn't. It was just too horrible. Makes the stuff in the Song of Ice and Fire books look like Sonic SatAM.

These verses, however, are not the be-all, end-all of these religions. I've not forgotten these verses at all; I'm saying that they're not as influential human behavior as you might expect, any more than that stupid "video games cause violence" thing. In both cases, one reinforces pre-existing conditions which helps drive people into violent behaviors, but such behaviors would likely have occurred anyway in said communities and/or individuals. Europe wasn't all sunshine, rainbows, and flowers before Christianity came along and sent our ancestors on violent crusades; European Tribes had been fighting each other for centuries before the first Christian missionary ever went beyond the Roman frontier.

And then there's Charles Manson who was told to kill people by Beatles songs.

To me, your argument sounds rather akin to "kitchen knives allow for the potential for families to kill each other."

Red herring and moral equivalence fallacy . Mason had mental problems thus is not the same as whole groups of people committing acts or that accept that genocide is okay by the command of any God as acceptable. Unless you are suggesting religious beliefs such as this are a form of a mental illness. An alternative is the God is like Mason since he never killed anyone himself, his followers did. These verses did have an influences during the Crusades and Pagan wars. These verses should have an influence since it shows the moral compass of their God within their holy book. It is a belief that is dangerous. You unwittingly just become an apologist for genocide as well. Consider how your own argument can be used to excuse a number of event in the last century alone

 

[Riverwolf]

Red herring and moral equivalence fallacy . Mason had mental problems thus is not the same as whole groups of people committing acts or that accept that genocide is okay by the command of any God as acceptable. Unless you are suggesting religious beliefs such as this are a form of a mental illness. An alternative is the God is like Mason since he never killed anyone himself, his followers did. These verses did have an influences during the Crusades and Pagan wars. These verses should have an influence since it shows the moral compass of their God within their holy book. It is a belief that is dangerous. You unwittingly just become an apologist for genocide as well. Consider how your own argument can be used to excuse a number of event in the last century alone

Speaking of logical fallacies, ad hominim (apologist for genocide) and your own red herring (how my argument might apply to more recent events).

I never denied their influence. But their influence wasn't causal; they were new justifications for old habits. Without Christianity, the Crusades as we know them might not have happened. But Rome still exterminated the Dacians well before Christianization; there might have instead been "Crusades to spread the Light of Rome to the Barbaric Darkness!" (Heck, there pretty much were; we just don't call them "crusades").

And my point remains: if the religions where inherently depraved, I'd expect to see this kind of behavior from everyone who follows them, and yet I see the exact opposite. Another thing I'd expect is that communities that didn't have these religions wouldn't commit such acts very often, if at all. I use the overall behavior of adherents to a religion to judge it, since they are its primary representatives. Sure, that might be my bias as a Heathen (we don't have any "holy books", or any kind of equivalent), but then again, I've met plenty of Christians who didn't practice sola scriptura. This whole thing about

 

[Shad]

Speaking of logical fallacies, ad hominim (apologist for genocide) and your own red herring (how my argument might apply to more recent events).

That is a conclusion not an ad hominim. An ad hominim is to discredit the person not the argument. I discredited your argument then made a conclusion based on your "Well other people were bad too" fallacious reasoning within your argument. It is the same as if you argued 1+1=3. Saying you do not know math is not an attack, it is a conclusion.

I never denied their influence. But their influence wasn't causal; they were new justifications for old habits. Without Christianity, the Crusades as we know them might not have happened. But Rome still exterminated the Dacians well before Christianization; there might have instead been "Crusades to spread the Light of Rome to the Barbaric Darkness!" (Heck, there pretty much were; we just don't call them "crusades").

Like Christianity Rome had it's own God complex and idea of right to rule by their own religion which was used to justify these acts. That is the point. Such beliefs are dangerous.

And my point remains: if the religions where inherently depraved, I'd expect to see this kind of behavior from everyone who follows them, and yet I see the exact opposite. Another thing I'd expect is that communities that didn't have these religions wouldn't commit such acts very often, if at all. I use the overall behavior of adherents to a religion to judge it, since they are its primary representatives. Sure, that might be my bias as a Heathen (we don't have any "holy books", or any kind of equivalent), but then again, I've met plenty of Christians who didn't practice sola scriptura. This whole thing about

People tend to conform to what is the social norm of the time not their religion. The social norms override religions then are filtered back as if the religion established this norm in the first place. It is a cognitive dissonance problem. This has happened repeatedly all over the world. Go look at the Civil War and the lead up to it. Sets of Christians both supported and opposed slavery. Both used the same book to based their views upon. The difference between these was the social norm of the area they lived in not their religion. Their social norm was filtered through religion as justification, nothing more.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is a conclusion not an ad hominim. An ad hominim is to discredit the person not the argument. I discredited your argument then made a conclusion based on your "Well other people were bad too" fallacious reasoning within your argument. It is the same as if you argued 1+1=3. Saying you do not know math is not an attack, it is a conclusion.

I disagree, but neither here nor there.

Like Christianity Rome had it's own God complex and idea of right to rule by their own religion which was used to justify these acts. That is the point. Such beliefs are dangerous.

If that's what you've been talking about, then we agree and have been talking past each other.

However, this concept is not inherent to the Abrahamic religions.

People tend to conform to what is the social norm of the time not their religion. The social norms override religions then are filtered back as if the religion established this norm in the first place. It is a cognitive dissonance problem. This has happened repeatedly all over the world. Go look at the Civil War and the lead up to it. Sets of Christians both supported and opposed slavery. Both used the same book to based their views upon. The difference between these was the social norm of the area they lived in not their religion. Their social norm was filtered through religion as justification, nothing more.

But if that's the case, then all the Abrahamic religions in themselves don't have any existence in America at all, and this discussion has nothing to do with religion.

Thing is, I think you're confusing the religions with their respective books. A holy book is just a seed from which many different religions can sprout. Christianity can't even be rightly described as a single religion anymore; it's a multitude of related but quite separate religions.

 

[Shad]

I disagree, but neither here nor there.

Fine by me.

If that's what you've been talking about, then we agree and have been talking past each other.

Not really. You just provide examples of other dangerous beliefs which are used to justify horrible acts. It is the belief to justification which is an issue. The belief that an otherwise immoral act is justified because a deity said so.

However, this concept is not inherent to the Abrahamic religions.

Yes it is. Divine morality is part of all 3. When God endorses or acts in what is considered an immoral manner but is excused because it is God this warps the moral compass of many people. It also absolves God of any moral judgment and responsibility. It is a double-standard, nothing more.

But if that's the case, then all the Abrahamic religions in themselves don't have any existence in America at all, and this discussion has nothing to do with religion.

Yes it does. The point is that religions are influences by the accepted norms within different areas. Religion becomes a tool of justification for social norms while being put forward as the source of these social norms. It shows that religion is not immune to social influences.

Thing is, I think you're confusing the religions with their respective books. A holy book is just a seed from which many different religions can sprout. Christianity can't even be rightly described as a single religion anymore; it's a multitude of related but quite separate religions.

Christianity is based on a shared text. The interpretations are different. One can replace text with oral traditions. The result is similar but less cohesive as a unified set of beliefs. There is always a basis for religion and it is this basis which is used to create dogma and doctrine.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes it is. Divine morality is part of all 3.

There's more than 3, revealing only peripheral knowledge of them as a whole. One of them doesn't even remotely resemble the sorts of things you're talking about in any of the manifestations that I've seen (that one being Judaism).

When God endorses or acts in what is considered an immoral manner but is excused because it is God this warps the moral compass of many people.

You're forgetting (or maybe didn't know) that the "moral compass" that you're speaking of was brought to Europe (and by extension, the US) by Christianity. Most of our moral values in the US are derived from puritan Christianity, not the Old Way.

There is always a basis for religion and it is this basis which is used to create dogma and doctrine.

Except, you know, for those religions that don't have doctrine or dogmas.

Christianity doesn't have a single shared text, by the way. Rather, it has a multitude of canons that contain certain Jewish and early Christian writings. The first Christian Bible actually removed the entirety of the Tanakh, because the guy who created it, called Marcion, had the same reaction to those genocidal horrors that we did.

 

[Shad]

There's more than 3, revealing only peripheral knowledge of them as a whole. One of them doesn't even remotely resemble the sorts of things you're talking about in any of the manifestations that I've seen (that one being Judaism).

I focus on 3 since those are the most well known to the average person. Judaism follows the belief since it created the very idea of these verses and the context surround these. Read about the conquest of Canaanite in the Bible.

You're forgetting (or maybe didn't know) that the "moral compass" that you're speaking of was brought to Europe (and by extension, the US) by Christianity. Most of our moral values in the US are derived from puritan Christianity, not the Old Way.

No it wasn't. These moral existed in Greece, Roman, Gaul, Italy, Germany, etc long before Christianity even started. Christianity claimed these values as their own creation, this does not make it a fact.

Except, you know, for those religions that don't have doctrine or dogmas.

Divine command theory is present in all 3. The idea that God provides justification for immoral acts such as slavery and genocide.

Christianity doesn't have a single shared text, by the way. Rather, it has a multitude of canons that contain certain Jewish and early Christian writings. The first Christian Bible actually removed the entirety of the Tanakh, because the guy who created it, called Marcion, had the same reaction to those genocidal horrors that we did.

Christianity is based on a shared source material with different interpretation along with levels of authority and authenticity. Marcion resolved the OT's immoral God with the view that the OT God is not really God. All he did was acknowledge that people followed what appears to be God and accepted DCT as a resolution to the very issue I am talking about. The OT God is immoral. God can not be immoral thus the OT God is not really God.

 

[MARCELLO]

On one hand, you can hate whatever you want but on the second hand, why would anyone hate something that is inanimate. Something like religion can't be good or evil as it does nothing by itself. People who follow any of those religions can be good (by human standards only, in my opinion), they can be evil, they can be apathetic, etc.

By the same token, I couldn't love my religion or faith. I can, however, love God (and I do).

Still you cannot (or shouldn't ) hate anything.We all perfectly know what hatred brings to us.

 

[JoStories]

I do disagree.
You can hate/despise/dislike homophobia, racism, sexism, etc but to be intolerant of them just makes you one of them. A bigot.

So no it's not honourable, it's hypocritical.

I could not disagree more strongly. To be intolerant of racism, sexism, etc, is to stand firmly against those things. I am intolerant, as pointed out by my dear friend Leibowde stated, of all of that. IOW, I will not stand for them. To not tolerant racism is to stand firmly against that. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it but I would rather stand against those things that support them in any way, shape or form.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, we are talking about texts that, at their core, embrace homophobia, sexism, religious fanaticism, and tribalism.

You tell me if it is wrong to hate these things or not.

 

[Yerda]

Well, we are talking about texts that, at their core, embrace homophobia, sexism, religious fanaticism, and tribalism.

You tell me if it is wrong to hate these things or not.

How many times does the NT condemn homosexuality? How many times does it condemn greed?

Also, remember that texts are not religions.

 

[Thana]

I could not disagree more strongly. To be intolerant of racism, sexism, etc, is to stand firmly against those things. I am intolerant, as pointed out by my dear friend Leibowde stated, of all of that. IOW, I will not stand for them. To not tolerant racism is to stand firmly against that. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it but I would rather stand against those things that support them in any way, shape or form.

Stand firmly against? No, to be intolerant means to literally not tolerate it. There is a difference between being against something and being intolerant of something.

 

[Mitch M]

When You go to War against a Nation the Often need and the Custom and Practice was to Kill their Women and Children as well..
The United States went to war against Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, and Against Muslims too. We KNOW Full and Well that the WHOLE SALE Slaughter of Woman and Children is a Must. It happens In every single Major war.

the Woman and Children work to Keep the War Machine Going. They Woman and Youth of our enemies worked to make Bullets, Clothing, Medical Packs and boots and Other Instruments of War. The Woman and Children of the Enemy are Just as important as the Soldiers. In Little police actions and small military ops, where we have the Upper hand. We can Pretend that Woman and Children are special. But when it comes to a REAL WAR. All that garbage goes out the door.

The Hebrews were behaving normal. After being attacked by Overwhelming odds and being abused by their Neighboring Nations, the Jews Finished the Wars and Won and survived, by Killing Woman and Children. Millions and Millions and millions of Woman and Children have died in WW ll, in Vietnam, in The Middle East. had we not Killed WOMEN and CHILDREN in these REAL WARS. We would have never, EVER won the wars and would not survive.

I am Glad to Discuss this with You. Perhaps You would rather that the Hebrews had not Survived ?

 

[Mitch M]

The Jews warred against the Midianites, slew all the males. slew the kings - took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones,

and killed every male among the little ones, and killed every woman that had known a man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, They KEPT alive for Themselves...
................................
You should keep in mind that the Midianites were aggressors against the Hebrews. The Midianites JOINED Up with the Enemies of Israel who were trying to eXterminate the Hebrews
Please NOTICE in - Deu 25:17 Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
Deu 25:18 How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.

Deu 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

The Amalekites attacked the Hebrews from behind as they were escaping and moving away - from Egypt.
The Amalekites attacked the Weaker people who were = at the Rear of the traveling Jews, who were feeble faint and weary.
The Book of Psalms clarifies the environment and duties of the Israelites When they Go to war against their Enemies who had been attacking them.

Psa 83:4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
Psa 83:5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:
Psa 83:6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes;
Psa 83:7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre;
Psa 83:8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.
Psa 83:9 Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison:
Psa 83:10 Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth.

please Keep in mind that these Canaanites Attacked the Hebrews First and made war on them when they were traveling on their way from Egypt. They were trying to eXterminate them. So the Hebrews Won the War. Killed Everyone of them But were allowed to SAVE the VIRGIN Women who could be made into CLEAN future Wives for them.

The Hebrews did not Run around attacking people for no reason, Just to rape their women. PLEASE READ the FULL HISTORY