What is the most ethnically superior religion?

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

This is according to your own viewpoints.

Comparing the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; which do you think is the most morally superior and the least?

I'm most interested in how atheists or agnostics think of the three Abrahamic religions.

 

[Holoman]

Mine of course

 

[The Cadet]

I think you misspelled "ethically" in the title, which religion is ethnically superior is a slightly different question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is according to your own viewpoints.

Comparing the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; which do you think is the most morally superior and the least?

I'm most interested in how atheists or agnostics think of the three Abrahamic religions.

They all basically have the same rules and values, with some cultural differences.

I consider them all immoral.
There are topics where one is worse then the other and vice versa. I couldn't really tell "in general" which is the most immoral.

They also all have things that are nice / moral. But those don't make the immoral bits go away.

 

[The Cadet]

They also all have things that are nice / moral. But those don't make the immoral bits go away.

I'd say there's a pretty reasonable case to be made that Islam is the most brutal and cruel of the Abrahamic religions. Not all evil is equal. My parking violation is not the same as that guy's grand theft auto. That said, I agree completely that none of these religions really offer much of a positive moral framework, insofar as you could craft a better one simply by stripping out certain core aspects, such as the threat of hell.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd say there's a pretty reasonable case to be made that Islam is the most brutal and cruel of the Abrahamic religions. Not all evil is equal. My parking violation is not the same as that guy's grand theft auto. That said, I agree completely that none of these religions really offer much of a positive moral framework, insofar as you could craft a better one simply by stripping out certain core aspects, such as the threat of hell.

I kind of disagree on Islam being the most brutal and cruel.
If we look at the followers of these religions today, it certainly is tempting to draw that conclusion.

But when looking at the actual scriptures of all religions (bible, quran and torah), there really isn't that big of a difference in terms of barbarism and cruelty.

 

[quatona]

This is according to your own viewpoints.

Comparing the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; which do you think is the most morally superior and the least?

I'm most interested in how atheists or agnostics think of the three Abrahamic religions.

In their fundy versions I find them all pretty dangerous, and in their moderate versions more or less harmless.

 

[SteveB28]

Potentially, all are equally toxic. .

In practice, it depends upon the era and the geographical location.

 

[ken777]

This is according to your own viewpoints.

Comparing the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; which do you think is the most morally superior and the least?

I'm most interested in how atheists or agnostics think of the three Abrahamic religions.

If we just look at social values, I don't think it gets any better than "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" and the good Samaritan story.

.

 

[SteveB28]

If we just look at social values, I don't think it gets any better than "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" and the good Samaritan story.

.

Unless, of course, your "neighbour" happens to be a witch, or unbeliever, or homosexual, or adulterer, or mentally ill.

 

[ken777]

Unless, of course, your "neighbour" happens to be a witch, or unbeliever, or homosexual, or adulterer, or mentally ill.

Good ole dependable Steve

.

 

[SteveB28]

Good ole dependable Steve

.

Please explain what the Bible advises if your neighbour is any of those people?

 

[ken777]

Please explain what the Bible advises if your neighbour is any of those people?

"Be kind" (Eph 4:32)

.

 

[The Cadet]

If we just look at social values, I don't think it gets any better than "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" and the good Samaritan story.

.

I dunno, the Qur'an has some pretty great moral lessons as well. Of course, all of that falls apart the moment you look at the rest of the book and realize it's full of awful moral lessons in other cases. When it comes down to building a moral system, we must value the negative lessons far more heavily than the positive ones, as the negatives tell us far more about what negative effects we can expect. Most people don't need a book to be told not to rape, murder, or pillage; as Penn Jillette so eloquently put it: "I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero."

But when a person's religious beliefs inform them that something which is patently immoral (such as torturing and killing someone for being a homosexual, in Qur'an verses 7:80-84) is morally necessary, or that they must accept something horrifying (burning in hell for all of eternity for not believing in their god, in Qur'an verse 4:56) as morally justified, that can seriously warp their view of reality and what is right and wrong, and cause them to commit horrible, horrible actions.

"Be kind" (Eph 4:32)

So I guess we'll do that while we put them to death? Maybe by using a guillotine, rather than stoning? Of course, here we run into the other problem, the contradictory nature of the old and new testaments. In one passage, God is vengeful, calling homosexuality a moral abomination deserving of death; in another, he is merciful, demanding that we love one another. This makes it very hard to form any sort of coherent moral system - you have to interpret, which can make the whole thing quite a mess.

Personally, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that the Qur'an is a more horrible and reprehensible document than the Bible, and there's no question that it's currently more harmful to world affairs. However, to claim that the bible is nice because it promotes good moral values... I'm sorry, but your selective reading does not constitute the whole book.

 

[ken777]

So I guess we'll do that while we put them to death? Maybe by using a guillotine, rather than stoning? Of course, here we run into the other problem, the contradictory nature of the old and new testaments. In one passage, God is vengeful, calling homosexuality a moral abomination deserving of death; in another, he is merciful, demanding that we love one another. This makes it very hard to form any sort of coherent moral system - you have to interpret, which can make the whole thing quite a mess.

It would seem a "mess" if you do not accept the NT explanation that the OT law applied only to the Jews, while the rest of humankind was governed by conscience (Romans 2:14-15).

The same judge who sentences a murderer to life in prison is the same man who goes home and cuddles his children.

.

 

[quatona]

It would seem a "mess" if you do not accept the NT explanation that the OT law applied only to the Jews, while the rest of humankind was governed by conscience (Romans 2:14-15).

IMO it isn´t lesser a mess (quite the opposite, actually) when it makes provisions for exceptions regarding the "us"-crowd.

 

[ken777]

IMO it isn´t lesser a mess (quite the opposite, actually) when it makes provisions for exceptions regarding the "us"-crowd.

In the OT, the "us"-crowd had a much stricter law than the outsiders for whom ignorance was an excuse (Acts 17:30).

.

 

[quatona]

In the OT, the "us"-crowd had a much stricter law than the outsiders for whom ignorance was an excuse (Acts 17:30).

You just described exceptions from the "be nice" thing. That is not an example for being "stricter".

 

[asherahSamaria]

Unless, of course, your "neighbour" happens to be a witch, or unbeliever, or homosexual, or adulterer, or mentally ill.

Or an out and out atheist .....

 

[Goonie]

As has been pointed out, someone really needs to correct the title of this thread, ethically, not ethnically.