• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are People Of Religious Faith Typically Bigots?

Are People Of Religious Faith Typically Bigots?


  • Total voters
    58
You can only be saved through Christ is a bigotted statement. I don't know any Christian who would sway from that line of thinking and still call them self a Christian.

That's not a bigoted statement, and it's open to interpretation. Christ is God, and God can take many forms to different people who are religious.
 
Why do some people always resort to that? "So do Muslims and Jews." No kidding. Did I say otherwise?

I felt it important not to single any one religion out in this discussion. You must not feel the same.
 
That's not a bigoted statement, and it's open to interpretation. Christ is God, and God can take many forms to different people who are religious.

In order for it not to be a bigoted statement, all Jews and Muslims would have to be saved.
 
That's not a bigoted statement, and it's open to interpretation. Christ is God, and God can take many forms to different people who are religious.

So if I believed Christ never existed, I could be a Christian and still be saved?
 
Met a lot of religious people who claimed opendmindedness. They're never so open minded when you start opening up about your opposing beliefs. Then you start realizing they're getting a lot colder towards you.

How can a person who believes and is constantly told that you burn in hell for thinking the wrong things, how can that person ever truly be non-discriminatory? I mean to be religious you basically have to be discriminatory or you aren't truly following your religion.
 
In order for it not to be a bigoted statement, all Jews and Muslims would have to be saved.

And Hindus, Buddhist, Sikhs, etc. I'll let Christians argue over their interpretation of this decree, but remember that Buddha says that his brand of salvation can only be achieved by following his path. Is that bigoted? I think its a stretch.
 
So if I believed Christ never existed, I could be a Christian and still be saved?

You wouldn't be saved in the Christian way, since you wouldn't be Christian. Most Christians are pretty open with allowing other religions to save people, too. People who are not religious don't have to worry about it.
 
I felt it important not to single any one religion out in this discussion. You must not feel the same.

Given the OP is talking about Christians specifically? No. I feel it wasn't important since the title wasn't about the religious.

Did you just assume I believed that all Muslims were murderers and all Jews were greedy misers? Was that the point? I'm a conservative Christian, so I must be a bigot right?
 
Met a lot of religious people who claimed opendmindedness. They're never so open minded when you start opening up about your opposing beliefs. Then you start realizing they're getting a lot colder towards you.

Funny. I've met lots of non religious people who are the same way.
 
You wouldn't be saved in the Christian way, since you wouldn't be Christian. Most Christians are pretty open with allowing other religions to save people, too. People who are not religious don't have to worry about it.

It's not open to interpretation then is it?
 
It's not open to interpretation then is it?

If you want to be saved like a Christian, be a Christian. If you want to be saved like a Buddhist, be a Buddhist. If you don't care about being saved by a religion, don't follow a religion. I fail to see the bigotry.
 
Given the OP is talking about Christians specifically? No. I feel it wasn't important since the title wasn't about the religious.

Did you just assume I believed that all Muslims were murderers and all Jews were greedy misers? Was that the point? I'm a conservative Christian, so I must be a bigot right?

Are you high? Where in the OP are Christians in question?
 
Are you high? Where in the OP are Christians in question?

I'm in 2 threads and one is specifically about Christians ;) got them mixed up.

At any rate: my point stands. Did you just assume I believe all Muslims and Jews were exempt from the millions thing I said?
 
would you prefer i use the word 'superstition'? I mean, you have often heard the (in your opinion, cop-out) "i don't hate them, god hates them"; "i'm not judging them, god is."

It doesn't really matter what word you use, the effect is the same. It's always amazing how the things "god" hates are also the things that the individual hates, almost like "god" is an excuse for putting their own hatred out there without taking any responsibility for it.

So in that context, how is believing adultery is a sin by definition bigotry? It seems to me that only once they attach personal hatred - rather than unthinking submission to their bible - and attempt to make the act illegal in our laws does it veer into intolerance

It depends. First off, sin is an absurd concept, let's get that out there right now. It's really saying "I think this is wrong because I believe an invisible man in the sky doesn't like it". It's ridiculous. Secondly though, I really don't see people who just have an unthinking submission to their Bible and don't internalize it. They are taking a "crime" and almost always assigning some sort of penalty for engaging in that "crime", whether it's a penalty that happens in the real world or one they pretend will happen in the afterlife.

Besides, there's nothing necessarily wrong with intolerance. I am absolutely and proudly intolerant of pedophilia. That's not a bad thing.
 
Show me a human being that bolded part does not describe.

Which really doesn't matter. Maybe that just makes all people bigots in some way. Doesn't change the facts.
 
If you want to be saved like a Christian, be a Christian. If you want to be saved like a Buddhist, be a Buddhist. If you don't care about being saved by a religion, don't follow a religion. I fail to see the bigotry.

So why do so many religious people try to scare you with hell if you don't join their belief system?
 
I'm in 2 threads and one is specifically about Christians ;) got them mixed up.

At any rate: my point stands. Did you just assume I believe all Muslims and Jews were exempt from the millions thing I said?

No I didn't assume anything. I just didn't want others to assume this thread was made to criticize only one culture.
 
So why do so many religious people try to scare you with hell if you don't join their belief system?

Most religions use it because the founders and contributors to scripture are wise enough to understand what motivates people: Reward and Punishment. However, most religions at their core revolve around two principles: (1) You reap what you sew, and (2) Treat others as you would like to be treated.
 
I answered the original question "no". It is easy to pick on people of religious faith because of the sins of a few, in particular, religious fundamentalists. If the original question was posed regarding religious fundamentalists, I may have said yes. If one asked "are most bigots also religious fundamentalists" (whether they currently practice of not), I may have been inclined to say yes. But to try and tar all people of religious faith as though they behave like the fundamentalists (who tend to simplistic literal interpretations, many times out of context with the full meaning of their scripture or doctrine), that's just wrong IMO.
 
I answered the original question "no". It is easy to pick on people of religious faith because of the sins of a few, in particular, religious fundamentalists. If the original question was posed regarding religious fundamentalists, I may have said yes. If one asked "are most bigots also religious fundamentalists" (whether they currently practice of not), I may have been inclined to say yes. But to try and tar all people of religious faith as though they behave like the fundamentalists (who tend to simplistic literal interpretations, many times out of context with the full meaning of their scripture or doctrine), that's just wrong IMO.

When I said they are strict with their religious practice, I was meaning to imply fundamentalist. Thank you for your opinion. I do agree. I should have worded it differently.
 
Typically no!

Not even on DP, seeing how most post only on other topics.

Couple of whackos though who can't pass the week without an attempt to shove theirs onto others.

DP is not a good example, the bigots are over-represented here.
 
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

My experiences tell me yes, all people who strictly try to follow ancient religions are bigots. I'm curious of other peoples opinions on this.

Not at all. Belief in objectivity does not make one intolerant, any more than moral relativism makes one tolerant. Tolerance and belief are two separate categories of thought and behavior. Can one believe it is wrong to steal, yet tolerate a hungry child who has taken a piece of bread? Repentance and redemption are MAJOR elements of religion, useless concepts except for tolerance, don't you think?
 
Not at all. Belief in objectivity does not make one intolerant, any more than moral relativism makes one tolerant. Tolerance and belief are two separate categories of thought and behavior. Can one believe it is wrong to steal, yet tolerate a hungry child who has taken a piece of bread? Repentance and redemption are MAJOR elements of religion, useless concepts except for tolerance, don't you think?

I do agree with much of what you say. The true bigot in your scenario would be the person who finds no tolerance for the hungry child stealing. If such a person were to exist, I assume they would also not be treating the child how they would want to be treated if they were hungry and ignorant.
 
I do agree with much of what you say. The true bigot in your scenario would be the person who finds no tolerance for the hungry child stealing. If such a person were to exist, I assume they would also not be treating the child how they would want to be treated if they were hungry and ignorant.

Well actually, a decent person would find a way for the child to get the food they need without having to steal. Only a douchebag would stare at the kid and let him keep stealing without getting off their backside to do something to better the situation. I wouldn't want the child to be hungry but neither would I accept that stealing is a good way to put food in their belly.
 
Back
Top Bottom