|
|
|
|
|
| | Religion being tolerant of other religionsPage 3 of 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) | | Good questions Feral, I was basing my comments on the foundations of the Christian religion, which what I hear mostly is based on the Bible. Going with the Text in the Bible, then it shows a lack of tolerance for other beliefs | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 8:31:06 PM | seriously, lilnikki: wow! how did i end up the as the guy defending the bible? I'm not even religious, never mind christian!
I agree with you. My point, "It is those who practice their religions as if their books were infallible that make religion intolerant." is that people who are unwilling to accept theses documents as time-specific are the problem. My problem is with born again christians, radical islamists and any other fundamentalist, not with religion itself.
In the context of history, it is important to note that religions did seek (initially) to bring progression to the problems that plagued the people. Christianity has many faults, but it was most significantly the precursor to the idea of the individual (which in turn gave birth to the idea of human rights). And, as hard as it is for some to believe, Islam did bring progression to the rights of women (in that time!!). In the early days of islam, women had the right to divorce, it was not a right for chirstians or anyone else of that period. Islam was also the force behind early medicine and pharmaceutical sciences, math, the written word and the protection of ancient philosophy (through the dark ages).
All I'm saying is that these important contributions shouldn't be written off with all of the bad that they have created (slavery/segregation, oppression of women, gays/lesbians, etc.) We need to bring some of our own tolerance to the table, read and understand history, and maintain intolerance only toward the intolerant. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 8:40:32 PM | | Hmm all I would say is do not underestimate or forget the influence of democracy. It was democracy more than any religion which was enlightened to finally bring about more of the values we have today. Not all of them but a good deal more than what religion was responsible for. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 8:47:47 PM | | I don't think anyone is discounting the ideals of democracy. The big picture is vast and complex and the thread is about tolerance in religion. I think that it's important to value all contributions, but to evolve the discourse. Tolerant religious folks contribute as much as the rest of us. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 8:48:56 PM |
Good questions Feral, I was basing my comments on the foundations of the Christian religion, which what I hear mostly is based on the Bible. Going with the Text in the Bible, then it shows a lack of tolerance for other beliefs
Thanks, SFL. And, I'll give you props for being on top of the fundamental concepts from which a lot of the intolerance derives.
The funny thing about most of it, to me, is that, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, those concepts, those impulses toward intolerance are mostly OT-derived. Christ, the purported founder of the religion, was quite possibly the most tolerant of all. Hell, even the myth of putting the Roman guard's ear back on shows this. "Sure, they're about to take me to judgment and death, but come on, this guy's a decent guy. Don't cut pieces off him." Rewind to Jehovah striking fire and brimstone into the lives of anybody even potentially deviating from The Path, or fast-forward to Paul using the mythology as a basis for the growth of what was to be the most politically (read: secularly) powerful religious (read: "spiritual") movement on the planet, and you can see where I'm going with the "was it the religion, or the religious people?" question.
And, here's the kicker, yeah? Judaism shares the Old book, kinda ignores the New one, since JC wasn't supposedly The Man, but it's not Jews reading hellfire and evil into all their relations to other religions. They're more tolerant (on the whole) than the self-proclaimed modern disciples of the Prince of Peace! Kinda makes me wonder, at least.
All I'm saying is that these important contributions shouldn't be written off with all of the bad that they have created (slavery/segregation, oppression of women, gays/lesbians, etc.) We need to bring some of our own tolerance to the table, read and understand history, and maintain intolerance only toward the intolerant.
And I say, cool points to that. I can dig it. Here's the question, though. Proportionally, how many of those advances, social, technical, scientific, etc., can be attributed to the religion, as opposed to the society that also espoused the religion? And, how many of those advances were sanctioned, granted, promoted by the religions themselves?
As for the tolerance of intolerance gig, I'm with you. Anybody can think/say/do whatever the hell they like, so long as it don't hurt me or mine. None of this thin-skinned bellyaching about someone's "invasive" point of view like they had before here. Just don't tell me I gotta do what the other kids are doing, unless you've got the authority to make it stick, right? | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 9:13:09 PM |
Perhaps if words had been chosen more carefully the bickering would never have resulted?
"Ding, ding, ding-- we have a winner! Tell her what she's won, Don!" Haven't we read something like this before? I think it was in msg #16 after the words "My whole point was..."
Truly, that is my point. Jenni, you softened your tone towards houston in your second post, but you didn't retract anything you said in your first post. That was very politically astute of you, but my issue was with your choice of words and tone in your first post-- namely, the accusation of intolerance, and the "pffft" conclusion. If your first post just lacked those two things, Robert would never have gotten the debate he so desperately wanted.
Robert, you accuse Blue and I of personal bias, missing your point, and selective reading skills. In other words, everything I have seen you guilty of in your posts! I tend to choose my words carefully, but you still hear what you want to hear and make false accusations. I can only speculate that it's one of three things:
1. My posts aren't clear enough for you. But instead of asking for clarification, you just assume the worst possible conclusion. You know what happens when you assume, don't you?
2. You're purposefully and willfully misrepresenting my stance. That is an intellectually lazy and mean-spirited method of trying to get the upper hand in a debate.
3. You don't care what I actually write because you're convinced I have a sinister personal bias against people of different beliefs. The interesting thing here is that I have never actually stated what my belief is or how absolute it is. Yes, my profile says "Christian," but this forum has had whole threads asking what that even means, and how Christians can't even agree with one another.
In any case, communication is not happening between us. There are some other good discussions going on in this thread, and arguing this point has become like hitting my head against the wall, except slightly less satisfying. I know you like to have the last word Robert, and you may have it. You can try to bait me back in, but I'm out.
"Good night, and good luck." | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 9:21:46 PM | Proportionally, how many of those advances, social, technical, scientific, etc., can be attributed to the religion, as opposed to the society that also espoused the religion?
Dunno, it's hard for me to separate pre-renaissance cultures from the religions that controlled them. But there definitely seems to be a significant influence from the religion, either by informing the action or more directly from its leadership/intellectuals. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 9:23:41 PM | "Truly, that is my point. Jenni, you softened your tone towards houston in your second post, but you didn't retract anything you said in your first post."
She did not have anything to retract if you had read my posts with blue. There is nothing to retract - you misread...end of story.
"If your first post just lacked those two things, Robert would never have gotten the debate he so desperately wanted."
Faulty assumptions - you are just sore because you have been exposed as the aggressor.
However, I apologize for labelling you a bigot and I am sorry if that offended you. I feel that you did not read Jenni's post properly and you may never see the possibility that you took a wrong turn. You gave me the last word and I have tried to use it as best as possible...I hope that you may feel somewhat at least partially vindicated.
Have a good one!
Robert | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 9:33:08 PM |
Dunno, it's hard for me to separate pre-renaissance cultures from the religions that controlled them. But there definitely seems to be a significant influence from the religion, either by informing the action or more directly from its leadership/intellectuals.
Fair enough. I honestly don't know enough about Islam to say whether or not the advances were derivative of the religion. And, I do know that a major amount of early scientific/philosophical thought did come out of the temples of non-Abrahamic pantheistic cultures. Certainly seems like something to look into, doesn't it? | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/17/2006 11:42:50 PM |
Truly, that is my point. Jenni, you softened your tone towards houston in your second post, but you didn't retract anything you said in your first post.
oh go chill out with blue! Have a blue while you're chilling ..get it? Blue, beer haha
I think you may want to go see someone about being able to hear tones in the written word. If anything, my second post was more pissy then my first post which wasn't pissy in the first place. You're psychic abilites need to be tuned. :)
As for the pffft. That would be akin to this emote... Which as we all know denotes fun and haha and I'm not being mean here just stating my point.
Excuse me oh perfect one for not putting the emote in. | |
|
longte
| | Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 61 | |
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 3:53:24 AM | Look at Organised Religion
"I Kill you in my Gods name" seems to be a fairly common practice within Organised Religion
Now look at the Beliefs behind most Religions
The Beliefs are usually not what the Religions practice
If and when Religions start Practicing their Original Beliefs, then they will be tolerant
..
. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 7:18:30 AM | I think its quite hard for some people to grasp the concept of tolerance for other religions especially when it's written in Holy Scriptures. People should be able to think for themselves and make a decision about taking scriptures in a realistic approach, and not literally.
In a world where variation is the key of motion, how can something like believing in religion be only one? | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 8:27:55 AM | Fimi,
"All I'm saying is that these important contributions shouldn't be written off with all the bad that they have created....We need to bring some of our own tolerance to the table, read and understand history and maintain intolerance only toward the intolerant."
Exactly. ...and I like that last part of the quote the most:, 'maintain intolerance only toward the intolerant.' Right on.
Feral,
"The funny thing about most of it, to me, is that, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, those concepts, those impulses towards intolerance are mostly OT-derived. Christ, the purported founder of the religion, was quite possibly the most tolerant of all........and (the Jews) are more tolerant (on the whole) than the self-proclaimed modern discipiles of the Prince of Peace!"
Man, truer words haven't been written on this thread! Bizarre, isn't it? Makes you raise your eyebrow, scratch yer head, and think, 'wtF??! What are these ppl THINKing?' lol... Makes zero sense. Seems a lot of ppl who aren't even religious/'Christians' would fit into Jesus' ideal on how to treat ppl, etc, than many of those who *claim to follow His way. Anyway, just had to give those 2 kudos, and my $.02. Peace... | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 4:33:37 PM | Lilnikki
" 'maintain intolerance only toward the intolerant.'"
hmm that is more of "an eye for an eye" philosophy rather than Jesus' "turn the other cheek" alternate philosophy.
There are those who follow the bible religiously but miss out on its meanings just as there are those who read the bible and sift out the literal for the deeper figurative lessons. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 5:15:42 PM | robert, "hmm that is more of an "eye for an eye" philosophy rather than Jesus' "turn the other cheek" alternate philosophy."
Yeah, truth be known the ol' 'turn the other cheek' philosophy is one that I can't honestly claim to adhere to, personally. Can't wrap my mind around, or rather, accept that as a *truly viable option in many cases. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 7:17:20 PM |
Yeah, truth be known the ol' 'turn the other cheek' philosophy is one that I can't honestly claim to adhere to, personally. Can't wrap my mind around, or rather, accept that as a *truly viable option in many cases.
I don't usually see much problem in turning the other cheek, except I can also see where that's the extent. They get the first as a freebie. They take the second, then it's "eye for eye." In theory, at any rate. Rarely do folks even go for the "first cheek."
Usually, I just tend to approach it all rather with, "pull the other one, it has bells on." | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 7:58:31 PM | I stick to my original statement that almost all-major religion advocates tolerance towards other religious beliefs. IMO every major religion’s doctrine can be slit into two categories.
A) An ethical and moral teaching
B) A historical document.
As far as the historical part is concern --- each of the revelations regarding the “incidents” ONLY APPLIES to that particular situation and those particular people who were involved and NOT EVERYONE!!!!
Rest of the teachings regarding the ethical and moral and peace and love and restrain and patience and so on are FOR EVERYONE.
IMO anything that the critics find in any famous religion - are misinterpreted by people and are all based on the historical parts of the doctrine. Once again people (practitioners) are responsible for those changes and misunderstandings and critics are responsible for distorting meanings. Their opinions are based on those historical parts, something we cannot comprehend properly because we were not there.
It is impossible for us, after so many years to figure out the circumstance of any religious conflicts. Many war started for crazy reasons. It is impossible to see if true believers of any of these religions actually were at fault when a conflict broke loose. True believers are only allowed to fight in self-defense. That is even the teaching of Islam (many have wrong idea about this religion because of some of its practitioners behavior). Aggressive and premeditated attacks are forbidden. Tolerance and forgiveness is the key teachings of Islam. People changed the interpretations and made all these religions look bad to many. Blame the people.
By sitting on the sideline and observing the extremists and drifted off fake practitioners behavior and by reading articles written by crazy critics – it is impossible to judge any religion properly. We need to look at the true teachings ourselves and we should not look at the practitioners’ behavior. Looking at the teachings ourselves is the only way we can get the real picture of any religion.
Now let’s use some common sense and some logic…
It is illogical to believe that a religion can spread to so many people (billions) - if its teachings are about killings and hate. No one would ever in his or her right mind would follow that religion then.
Moses, Jesus and Mohammad would have never be able to make any point to anyone even in their time - if their teachings were based on killing people and hating people.
It is very clear to me that all those misunderstood scenario took place due to lack of proper preservation or proper relaying of the message through the timeline and by misinterpreting the doctrines.
You can find mostly good teachings in these religions, so it is illogical that the same God would also advocate hate and authorize killings. That would be a complete contradiction to the rest of the teachings. This is why we should understand that there are possibilities of misunderstandings in some of the historical aspects of these religions.
We need to pay more attention to the moral teachings rather than concentrate on the historical aspects of these religions. We were not there, we don’t know the reasons for many of those historical aspects, we can’t be sure who was attacked first and who retaliated. Even in recent days when terrorist attacks us - we go and squash them. It is not wrong to squash them in defense. Same thing could have happened back then. But to our eyes - now while reading about those incidents - it might look different because we were not there. This is why we should disregard the historical aspects and concentrate on the moral teachings of these religious books.
Once again most religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not responsible for hate or killings. Those culture and their traditions are responsible for it. These religions IMO advocates tolerance, and acknowledges different religion to exist side by side in peace. If someone don’t agree with my conclusion then they should look into the *moral* teachings of these religions. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/18/2006 8:19:09 PM | "Moses, Jesus and Mohammad would have never be able to make any point to anyone even in their time - if their teachings were based on killing people and hating people."
Well I think in the case of Jesus you might be right. You may also be right in the case of Mohammad but Moses....
You better re-read your Old testament, Moses was involved with plenty of killings. Those killings took place within his own camp and also in wars against other tribes in which women were raped on authority of Moses.
I think there has been also another non-canonical gospel circulating that tells of Jesus striking a child dead but I cannot confirm that ...maybe if someone has heard that they can add it to the forum.
The other problem I have with your post is that you assume that the early documents of each religion are tolerant. I think if you are going to comment on any documents with an historical perspective, you need to do the proper research and you also need at least to refer them properly.
I see you mention "historical document" but no reference of any of them to back up whatever it is you are saying in your post. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/19/2006 6:24:07 AM | By robertj64:
“You better re-read your Old Testament, Moses was involved with plenty of killings. Those killings took place within his own camp and also in wars against other tribes in which women were raped on authority of Moses.”
I am not Jewish as a matter-of-fact I can not claim to be follower of any humanly own religion yet but let me speak in defense of Moses anyways.
Let me give you an analogical example…
American Army is one of the best trained army in the world. Billions of dollars are spent every year to train this Army but yet not too long ago we saw some members of this Army performing terrible acts on prisoners of war. Who should we blame? Should it be the president of America?? He is the commander-in-chief. No! we cannot blame the president for some small individuals personal mistakes based on their personal way of thinking. You can not expect human being to act like robots within set parameters all the time. Similarly we shouldn’t blame everything that happened in Moses camp on Moses.
To make my case even clearer – we don’t even know if those historical scenarios are interpreted accurately to us. We were not there to see what really happened. We don’t have a video clip of those incidents. You want me to rely on historical documents that could be easily interpreted in different ways? Critics always base their findings on the historical evidence. We have no way now to contest them and check if they were written by wrongly influenced people. That is why it is illogical to worry about history. We need to look at the moral teachings and concentrate on them.
By robertj64:
“I see you mention "historical document" but no reference of any of them to back up whatever it is you are saying in your post.”
I said the information in the Torah, the Bible and the Koran can be slit into two parts. One part is the historical scenarios and the other part is the moral teachings. We need to concentrate on moral teachings.
In either way I would also like to add that --- if you are talking about capital punishments performed at that time - then I have to mention that many religions authorizes it. But our primary concentration should be on the moral teachings, because we were not there to see what really happened and words could easily change in meanings and translations.
Ethical teachings of these religion preaches tolerance and peace and restraint and restrain and love and harmony and on and on.
So it is better to concentrate on them and stop worrying about historical part because we were not there to understand what really happened. We were not there watching all through the timeline to see if anything got distorted or interpreted wrong. So, naturally we could get the wrong meaning from historical parts of Torah, Bible or Koran.
Ethical part anyone can relate to, so it is better to stick with those and stop trying to investigate history because we don’t have a time machine to witness what really happened.
Once again moral teachings of these religions based on Torah, Bible and Islam are based on tolerance and love. Let’s try to learn them first.
Now if you are talking about the way the capital punishments that were perform then I have to tell you that --- electrical chair, gas chambers or poisonous syringe were not discovered at that time and to hang someone you need a tree or you have to build a frame or something and you need ropes. Stoning was an existing way of punishment at that time. Once again I have to make it clear that I don’t like to worry about these things because I was not there. Teachings regarding morality are what I am more concern about. I can not possibly figure out all traditional reasons and social impacts behind every religion.
Let me make another point – Moses, Jesus and Mohammad came at a very bad time in civilization and they supposedly dealt with the most (morally) lost people in the world. IMO God sent them where the help was mostly needed.
In a very hostile and primitive world, where the societies were run by ruthless rulers and evil practices like “female infanticide” was a common practice performed by everyday people --- nobody wanted to listen to anything about moral values. So how did Moses, Jesus and Mohammad spread their teachings and converted people?
Do you really think they could have done this by killing people and advocating hate? That is an impossible possibility!! No one can spread a religion like that. Forget the historical parts; show me something in the moral teachings that advocate hate and intolerance in these religions.
Once again people are responsible for distorting the meanings and the history but not the religions. These religions advocate tolerance. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/19/2006 3:18:51 PM | Ok, you wanted for someone to show you intolerance in a religion...here you go, this doesn't sound very tolerant to me.
In The Old Testament
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to The Lord, and because of these detestable practices The Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before The Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 18:10-13 NIV)
In The New Testament
"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit The Kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21 NIV)
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation 21:8 NIV)
bold lettering added by poster....(that would be me) | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/19/2006 6:24:21 PM | Seriously,
I have learned that if you post anything that the bible says, there will always be someone who will always be able to spin it differently.
Now that that is out of the way....what magic arts can you perform? I would love to know more....
Take care
Robert
PS. Shadow I have not energy tonight to refute your arguments. Just mark me as an "I disagree" and we'll call it a day. | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:21:42 PM | | I personally have found that there is more tolerance with beleifs when they feel similar to the other....but when the beleifs seem almost opposite...thennnnn.....there is major intolerance | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:37:16 PM | Sunshine
If one religion claims to be the one true religion...Christianity for example...Jesus saying "I am the Way, the Truth, the Light...no one can come to the father except through me." We can never respect any other religion because it is not deemed true in our eyes. Therefore why would Christianity be tolerant of another religion? | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:47:02 PM | | and that in your own simple words robertj64?...and has someone here claimed to be the one true religion? and the biblical quote of Jesus....yes he said it....and no matter what religion we are we need to respect others. Note...."Christianity tolerant on another religion"....what might those "other" religions specifly being referred to? | |
|
| Religion being tolerant of other religions
Posted: 4/19/2006 8:20:42 PM | Sunshine
Christians follow Jesus words. "No one can come to the father except through me." What does that tell you? It means Christians must spread their message to everyone so that those people can get to the father through Jesus. If you believe that that is the only way, how can you be tolerant of other religions? You will see them as inferior and false. You will do whatever it takes to make people see that Jesus is the ONLY way.
Islam believes in Allah, Judaism believes in Yahweh. It does not matter to Christians that Allah and Yahweh may be the same as the Christian god, they must submit to Jesus to get to the father.
If you think your religion is superior what does it matter about the inferior religion? What does it matter about what it refers to....the inferior religion gets regarded as untrue and therefore is viewed with intolerance. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
3
of
6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
|
|
Home
login 