Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    From what I've learnt about Abrahamic religion, you are not supposed to judge others on their choices. You are also not supposed to actively sanction people who do not follow your religion in any way - only god can.

    These points are why I don't understand the common behavior of Abrahamic theologians of actively condemning and prohibiting certain choices of other people. These include the choice of being open about your homosexuality and practicing it; abortion; and even simpler things like pre-marital sex and consumption of alcohol. This is a very short list but were the only things that came to mind.

    Actively chastising and prohibiting these acts; and punishing their successful undertaking is an encroachment of free will. Free will is a cornerstone of their religion, along with divine retribution in the afterlife.

    Doesn't punishing and/or actively and outwardly condemning such things take away from your god's right of doing so himself on judgment day? If they can't practice their free will, won't their trials and tribulations in the afterlife be unjust? Doesn't encroaching free will imply an intention of impersonating god (the cardinal sin - in Islam at least)?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    From what I've learnt about Abrahamic religion, you are not supposed to judge others on their choices. You are also not supposed to actively sanction people who do not follow your religion in any way - only god can.

    These points are why I don't understand the common behavior of Abrahamic theologians of actively condemning and prohibiting certain choices of other people. These include the choice of being open about your homosexuality and practicing it; abortion; and even simpler things like pre-marital sex and consumption of alcohol. This is a very short list but were the only things that came to mind.

    Actively chastising and prohibiting these acts; and punishing their successful undertaking is an encroachment of free will. Free will is a cornerstone of their religion, along with divine retribution in the afterlife.

    Doesn't punishing and/or actively and outwardly condemning such things take away from your god's right of doing so himself on judgment day? If they can't practice their free will, won't their trials and tribulations in the afterlife be unjust? Doesn't encroaching free will imply an intention of impersonating god (the cardinal sin - in Islam at least)?
    I think the inclusion of free will is mistaken. Free will just says that people have choice of decisions and are responsible, morally speaking. When you find religious people arguing some things are right and some things are wrong they are prescribing an action which you should or shouldn't do. It doesn't take free will away at all, anymore than the law takes free will away. But simply says which decision you ought to do to be a morally good person. Whether you agree with what some religious people say is right/wrong or their arguments is another question. It certainly doesn't restrict free choice but wants to inform them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Not my views, just my understanding of one of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity/Catholicism).

    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    From what I've learnt about Abrahamic religion, you are not supposed to judge others on their choices. You are also not supposed to actively sanction people who do not follow your religion in any way - only god can.
    You're not supposed to judge others 'lest you be judged yourself' (let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that), but religion has found a workaround; by actively condemning actions deemed sinful, and instituting human laws alongside perceived natural laws, you can 'judge' others by comparing them to your view of what is right and wrong, as opposed to comparing them to yourself - which would indeed be hypocritical. This at least holds true for Judaism and Christianity for the most part (some of the OT does suggest you should sanction others in an attempt to convert them). Islam seems to be different. Apologies if I am mistaken, but I believe Islam takes a strong stance on sanctioning non-believers; punishing them, without placing emphasis on needing to convert them.

    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    These points are why I don't understand the common behavior of Abrahamic theologians of actively condemning and prohibiting certain choices of other people. These include the choice of being open about your homosexuality and practicing it; abortion; and even simpler things like pre-marital sex and consumption of alcohol. This is a very short list but were the only things that came to mind.
    The current Vatican stance is that it is still right to condemn certain actions, beliefs, and life choices, but Pope Francis has used the example of homosexuality to suggest we shouldn't prohibit them. The stance is quite simple; condemn these actions, and do not do anything that is deemed as 'enabling' (such as passing laws making it easier to get an abortion, or to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples), but if an individual wishes to go through with such an action, it is ultimately their choice (a choice enabled by free will, but one that is still 'wrong').

    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    Actively chastising and prohibiting these acts; and punishing their successful undertaking is an encroachment of free will. Free will is a cornerstone of their religion, along with divine retribution in the afterlife.
    Can't argue here, placing an emphasis on free will and then attempting to shut down any attempts at free will that don't follow religious policy is a glaring contradiction within religion, although I would argue it's more based on the authoritarian nature almost all organised religions, governments, and groups of humans inescapably lean towards.

    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    Doesn't punishing and/or actively and outwardly condemning such things take away from your god's right of doing so himself on judgment day? If they can't practice their free will, won't their trials and tribulations in the afterlife be unjust? Doesn't encroaching free will imply an intention of impersonating god (the cardinal sin - in Islam at least)?
    We are here for a few purposes. To praise God, to maintain the world in our stewardship, and to maintain a society in keeping with his commandments and his love. Punishing individuals for committing moral crimes is rather similar to punishing them for legal crimes; a large part is to punish them whilst on this earth to both rehabilitate them, and to prevent future crimes from others. It is not impersonating God, but rather attempting to keep in line with his Word.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    From what I've learnt about Abrahamic religion, you are not supposed to judge others on their choices. You are also not supposed to actively sanction people who do not follow your religion in any way - only god can.

    These points are why I don't understand the common behavior of Abrahamic theologians of actively condemning and prohibiting certain choices of other people. These include the choice of being open about your homosexuality and practicing it; abortion; and even simpler things like pre-marital sex and consumption of alcohol. This is a very short list but were the only things that came to mind.

    Actively chastising and prohibiting these acts; and punishing their successful undertaking is an encroachment of free will. Free will is a cornerstone of their religion, along with divine retribution in the afterlife.

    Doesn't punishing and/or actively and outwardly condemning such things take away from your god's right of doing so himself on judgment day? If they can't practice their free will, won't their trials and tribulations in the afterlife be unjust? Doesn't encroaching free will imply an intention of impersonating god (the cardinal sin - in Islam at least)?
    Firstly, this:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    I think the inclusion of free will is mistaken. Free will just says that people have choice of decisions and are responsible, morally speaking. When you find religious people arguing some things are right and some things are wrong they are prescribing an action which you should or shouldn't do. It doesn't take free will away at all, anymore than the law takes free will away. But simply says which decision you ought to do to be a morally good person. Whether you agree with what some religious people say is right/wrong or their arguments is another question. It certainly doesn't restrict free choice but wants to inform them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Secondly, where a religion (Islam at least) does prescribe legal sentencing for such choices, these instances are where the sin moves beyond being only between the sinner and God, affecting others and society as a whole. For example, theft is punishable only when the relevant conditions are met (the theif if isn't starving, a reasonable steps were made to prevent the theft, etc.), adultery is punishable by the popularly criticised punishment of stoning only when the conditions are met (4 eye witnesses of the adulterers engaged in the act, or repeated declaration of the act by the adulterer), and so on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    Doesn't punishing and/or actively and outwardly condemning such things take away from your god's right of doing so himself on judgment day? If they can't practice their free will, won't their trials and tribulations in the afterlife be unjust? Doesn't encroaching free will imply an intention of impersonating god (the cardinal sin - in Islam at least)?
    Religions are all about controlling or strongly influencing behaviour. The concept of gods was introduced as a means of adding an eternal threat to influence those who were superstitious enough to believe (which was most people in the past, and still is in ill-educated countries and among indoctrinated people even in well-educated countries) but rebellious enough to ignore earthly punishments.

    Adherents to a religion's views are prone to want others to follow their rules, even if the religion appears not to dictate it. Hence we find Islamic vigilantes trying to enforce sharia in Moslem-majority areas of London, and religiously conservative Americans influencing law-making for reasons of Christian superstition.

    The sooner all religious influence on laws is got rid of the better.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    From what I've learnt about Abrahamic religion, you are not supposed to judge others on their choices. You are also not supposed to actively sanction people who do not follow your religion in any way - only god can.

    These points are why I don't understand the common behavior of Abrahamic theologians of actively condemning and prohibiting certain choices of other people. These include the choice of being open about your homosexuality and practicing it; abortion; and even simpler things like pre-marital sex and consumption of alcohol. This is a very short list but were the only things that came to mind.

    Actively chastising and prohibiting these acts; and punishing their successful undertaking is an encroachment of free will. Free will is a cornerstone of their religion, along with divine retribution in the afterlife.

    Doesn't punishing and/or actively and outwardly condemning such things take away from your god's right of doing so himself on judgment day? If they can't practice their free will, won't their trials and tribulations in the afterlife be unjust? Doesn't encroaching free will imply an intention of impersonating god (the cardinal sin - in Islam at least)?
    Abrahamic religions were formed during the times when those 'issues' weren't evident, they are considered to be old-fashioned that's why lots of people have become more secular because those religions don't help them with their life anymore as it did before. That's why, I personally, don't tend to judge people. I totally agree that people or countries that solely base their morality on holy books and condemn people for being homosexual or having sex before marriage and so on. We, human beings, (I love to keep in mind) are selfish and ignorant therefore we shouldn't punish people for being homosexual or having sex before marriage or in some countries like Saudi Arabia give very little rights to women is completely wrong.

    People tend to exaggerate the word of God and take it to their advantage. In Abrahamic religions they emphasise the sanctity of life that God is the only one that can take or give life away so human beings shouldn't even dare to kill someone because of 'religious beliefs' as in my opinion you are equated yourself to God. Maybe society as well as so called religious figures should take this to account.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BristolFresher15)
    From what I've learnt about Abrahamic religion, you are not supposed to judge others on their choices. You are also not supposed to actively sanction people who do not follow your religion in any way - only god can.

    These points are why I don't understand the common behavior of Abrahamic theologians of actively condemning and prohibiting certain choices of other people. These include the choice of being open about your homosexuality and practicing it; abortion; and even simpler things like pre-marital sex and consumption of alcohol. This is a very short list but were the only things that came to mind.

    Actively chastising and prohibiting these acts; and punishing their successful undertaking is an encroachment of free will. Free will is a cornerstone of their religion, along with divine retribution in the afterlife.

    Doesn't punishing and/or actively and outwardly condemning such things take away from your god's right of doing so himself on judgment day? If they can't practice their free will, won't their trials and tribulations in the afterlife be unjust? Doesn't encroaching free will imply an intention of impersonating god (the cardinal sin - in Islam at least)?
    As a Christian I believe one day we will stand before God and give account of our lives.

    You can tell me not to keep eating fatty foods because eventually an excess will be bad for my health and my general well-being. I can choose to listen and then I can choose to do what I like. I don't think you are actively chastising me for this, you are concerned and telling/reminding me of the possible bad outcome.

    Its the same thing.

    I do not believe we have the right to dictate to others how they live or what they believe in but, I do believe in freedom of speech.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 22, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.