Religious Tolerance
- Thread starter Danoff
- 313 comments
- 20,210 views
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I don't believe that. I think most people who subscribe to religion understand perfectly well that theirs is not the only religion and that the only sensible way to accommodate each other is through tolerance. Unfortunately, at the same time there is an alarming increase in fundamentalism which does actively encourage intolerance. However, it's a natural reaction to say "why should we tolerate intolerance?" One major reason is because fundamentalism breeds fundamentalism, intolerance feeds intolerance. But as this case shows, reason can overcome seemingly unchallengeable (if not quite fundamentalist) attitudes because it draws upon common sense and a sense of justice. No fundamentalists believe that they are wrong, but sometimes they can be shown that they are wrong or atleast that their (re)actions (as a result of their beliefs) are inappropriate. Tackling fundamentalism with an equally entrenched argument doesn't work... it only emboldens both sides and the rift will widen. The only way you can even hope to successfully challenge fundamentalist thinking is through reason.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Just looking at many of the religious themed discussion on this site will show you that is not true. Disagreeing and being intolerant of each other are two totally different things.
So basically, after church and politics got intertwined the church began to act like government.
It just goes to show that politics can ruin anything.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,534
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Pretty much. It's the reason why I do not care for or participate in organized religion. Their is to much political involvement and I think many religions have gone astray from their true message.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Never a truer word spoken.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
You can reason with some people some of the time, but you can't reason with all people all of the time. Some lines of thought can't be challenged. Human beings are capable of refusing reason altogether, especially where religion is involved.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
You can always challenge a line of thought - whether you have any chance of success or whether it's a good idea or not are moot points. Most sensible people don't challenge fundamentalism because it's a waste of breath and can even be dangerous, but sometimes you have no choice but to challenge them, for instance when creationists insist on teaching religion in biology class, or when Islamists blow themselves up on London trains...
Challenging fundamentalism has to be done in a different way. It has to be grass roots - to me, fundamentalism is like AIDS - you can almost live with it, but generally speaking it's a pain in the ass and you're much better off preventing it in the first place rather than trying to fight it once it has taken hold. But just like turning a blind eye to HIV and AIDS, ignoring the problem of religious fundamentalism is not the solution - challenging the reasons, causes and the instigators of it has be done. For this task, people of religion are as responsible as anyone else - and are arguably better placed to tackle fundamentalism than your average agnostic or atheist.
The sad fact of the matter when it comes to suicide bombers is that they are commonly uneducated young men (and women) who are being used as cannon-fodder for military/political gain, with little or no real religious concern whatsoever. Similarly, creationists don't really want people to improve their chances of being an expert in biology by challenging evolution - their motives are purely political. The victims often include the perpetrators themselves. You might be wasting your breath trying to convince a junky the error of his ways, but take out the drug barons and you make that argument a whole lot easier...
Challenging fundamentalism has to be done in a different way. It has to be grass roots - to me, fundamentalism is like AIDS - you can almost live with it, but generally speaking it's a pain in the ass and you're much better off preventing it in the first place rather than trying to fight it once it has taken hold. But just like turning a blind eye to HIV and AIDS, ignoring the problem of religious fundamentalism is not the solution - challenging the reasons, causes and the instigators of it has be done. For this task, people of religion are as responsible as anyone else - and are arguably better placed to tackle fundamentalism than your average agnostic or atheist.
The sad fact of the matter when it comes to suicide bombers is that they are commonly uneducated young men (and women) who are being used as cannon-fodder for military/political gain, with little or no real religious concern whatsoever. Similarly, creationists don't really want people to improve their chances of being an expert in biology by challenging evolution - their motives are purely political. The victims often include the perpetrators themselves. You might be wasting your breath trying to convince a junky the error of his ways, but take out the drug barons and you make that argument a whole lot easier...
- 1,271
Individuals with a faith in something (God) can be tolerant and generally are. Religions cannot. Organized religion is an abomination. Just as you guys stated in the lasts few posts. Once you try to bring structure and control to ideas of faith, it ruins them.
Jesus (if you believe in him) was an idividual. Not a church. And I imagine if a person such as the Jesus of the christian bible existed, and did in fact return to see how the people applied his teachings, i'd imagine he'd be pretty damn appalled at the Catholic church and christianity as a whole when he found out about the horrible things done in his name.
Jesus (if you believe in him) was an idividual. Not a church. And I imagine if a person such as the Jesus of the christian bible existed, and did in fact return to see how the people applied his teachings, i'd imagine he'd be pretty damn appalled at the Catholic church and christianity as a whole when he found out about the horrible things done in his name.
- 1,202
👍 I've never been able to fathom how the new testament led to catholicism, for instance. Only explanation I can think of that fits is someone wanted power, and an organised churched playing on people's fear of the supernatural was their best tool for getting the power. It fits the bill better than any explanation I've ever heard from one of the church's representatives.
I think TM was on the money with fundamentalism too: If you want to challenge it, or neutralise it, cut the head off the beast. The frontline "soldiers" are so often just pawns being manipulated. So often they make huge sacrifices on the promise of riches after they die, so that the person heading the organisation can be more comfortable while they are alive.
It's like borrowing £millions of your neighbours on the promise that they will get ten times what they paid you back when they die. Plus some virgins to spend it on. Those that don't pay you will spend eternity living in a cardboard box in the shadow of an overpass with only mosquitos for company. Or something.
Great scam if you can pull it off. Just ask some of those TV evangelists who were doing so well in the '80s. By the time the suckers realise they've been had, they're too dead to do anything about it.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,534
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Well said 👍!
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I read it as saying religious individuals are tolerant people but the intolerance of fundamentalism comes from the organized religious groups.
Considering the immediate topic at hand was religious fundamentalists and tolerance I don't see how he was referring to non-believers at all.
If I say, "Apples can be red," I am not saying, "Strawberries cannot be red." Considering he was making an accusation of organized religions I highly doubt that he was anywhere close to even thinking that those without faith are not tolerant.
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Quite so - it'd be a false syllogism. I'm merely asking for a clarification that individuals full stop can be tolerant, rather than the unnecessary demarcation of those with "a faith in something".
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I don't know - Gordon has only just learned how to work YouTube, so perhaps we can expect a Brown-o-gram at Christmas? Perhaps he can go head-to-head with the Queen on Christmas Day, and see which one gets the highest ratings...?
I do love the fact that you have to click on Gordon's mouth to make him talk. If only that were real...
I do love the fact that you have to click on Gordon's mouth to make him talk. If only that were real...
- 87,628
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Who can say? With so many translations and versions, I'm amazed anyone puts any stock in any part of it.
New International Version: Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.
New Living Translation: Trust in your money and down you go! But the godly flourish like leaves in spring.
King James Version: He that trusteth in his riches shall fall; but the righteous shall flourish as a branch.
Contemporary English Version: Trust in your wealth and you will be a failure, but God's people will prosper like healthy plants.
Young's Literal Translation: Whoso is confident in his wealth he falleth, And as a leaf, the righteous flourish.
New American Standard: He who trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like the green leaf.
New Century Version: Those who trust in riches will be ruined, but a good person will be healthy like a green leaf.
Word of God my arse.
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
For all I know, none of them may be the word of God. The original writings from Proverbs is the word of God. But through many translations and changes made to the bible, and because no one has an exact replica of Proverbs when they where originally written, we can't really know.
I know I have the write to be offended, but your comment, "word of God my arse", felt irrelevant to the rest of your post and wasn't really necessary. That's all.
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
No. The original Bible is the true word of God. I would guess the current day bible is about 65-75% accurate to the original Bible in terms of its fables.
