Religious Tolerance

[Danoff]

You are getting so good at taking things out of context. We keep telling you that things have changed in the Bible since the OT, but you refuse to hear that. There is a whole big book for you to study but you sticking to the first half of the book isn't getting you anywhere. The coming of Jesus change nearly everything that could be taken from the OT. Is that still confusing you?

No, I get that. Swift and I went over that in great detail via PM. I understand that the NT God doesn't condone stonings, but that doesn't change the fact that at one point God did instruct his followers to kill the non-believers. Same goes with Allah and many other religions I'm sure.

 

[UnoMOTO]

No, I get that. Swift and I went over that in great detail via PM. I understand that the NT God doesn't condone stonings, but that doesn't change the fact that at one point God did instruct his followers to kill the non-believers. Same goes with Allah and many other religions I'm sure.

If you have ever maid a mistake and corrected yourself to not do it again this wouldn't be a sticking point for you. Sure what you are saying isn't false, but lets say that GOD saw the light. He understood that what he had done wasn't good for mankind. Thus he sent his son to us to say that what he had told us to do was wrong. That is as simple as you need to make it.

 

[livemusic]

I don't get why it isn't smart to be religious. You can't prove them wrong afterall, just like them can't prove you wrong.

Just asking.

 

[Danoff]

If you have ever maid a mistake and corrected yourself to not do it again this wouldn't be a sticking point for you. Sure what you are saying isn't false, but lets say that GOD saw the light. He understood that what he had done wasn't good for mankind. Thus he sent his son to us to say that what he had told us to do was wrong. That is as simple as you need to make it.

God is infallible.

I don't get why it isn't smart to be religious. You can't prove them wrong afterall, just like them can't prove you wrong.

Just asking.

I also can't prove the guy with the healing rocks wrong. What do you think?

 

[livemusic]

If he tries to cure a headache of yours with rocks and it doesn't work, doesn't that proves him wrong?

 

[Swift]

I don't think that religious folks are dumber than I am. I know lots of religious people who are more intelligent than I am. What I do think, is that it is not smart to be religious. There are lots of things one can do that aren't smart:

It's not smart to drive too fast on a crowded road.
It's not smart to refuse to wear a seatbelt.
It's not smart to mix medicine and alcohol.
...or have a go at heroin
...or play craps at a casino expecting to make money.

Lots of smart people do these things, but that doesn't make the act an intelligent one. Same goes for believing in God/Allah/Buddha/Ra/Zeus/Gia/Rocks/etc.



It doesn't matter. God still commanded that non-believers be killed. I'll get some more quotes if it helps, but I'm surprised that anyone is contesting that the God of the Old Testament condones the killing of non-believers.

So then why do you say that you will always consider someone's intelligence that is religious to be a notch down?

 

[UnoMOTO]

God is infallible.

I thought I would look in to infallible and here is what I found.

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

It is well further to explain:


that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

I see the error in his ways was not himself but what humans did with freewill. I should not have made the statement of him making a "mistake".

 

[FoolKiller]

If you have ever maid a mistake and corrected yourself to not do it again this wouldn't be a sticking point for you. Sure what you are saying isn't false, but lets say that GOD saw the light. He understood that what he had done wasn't good for mankind. Thus he sent his son to us to say that what he had told us to do was wrong. That is as simple as you need to make it.

God is infallible.

You set yourself up, 03R1.

Danoff, what about this?

It isn't that he changed his mind but he presented a new covenant (contract)? The old one had been filled and now it was time for a new one. Or unseen (to humans) circumstances created a need for a new covenant. Something in the spiritual world caused a need for change on the physical plain.

The problem with questioning the motives of God (whoever you believe that to be) is tricky business because he/she would be an entity beyond our comprehension to begin with and we are unable to see what events go on in the spiritual plain. Is there a true good vs evil struggle going on? Is there just some sort of spiritual imbalance? We don't know so anyone who answers why the attitude of God changed and why he created a new covenant is guessing. It is like me asking you to show me black matter. I won't be happy with some equation. I want to see it. You can't because you don't have the ability to pick it up or photograph it yet. Christians can't explain God's actions because we don't get a Q&A session. I don't even have his IM username.

 

[///M-Spec]

Christians can't explain God's actions because we don't get a Q&A session. I don't even have his IM username.

It wouldn't do you any good. He's always set to 'away'.


M

 

[ledhed]

P.J. O'Rourke (a libertarian/conservative) wrote in his book years ago that the US was a "Dictatorship of Boredom" ("Last one awake gets the spend the tax money."). He meant that Americans let the goverment do whatever the heck it wants because they (we) can't bring ourselves to become interested in what it is doing. I can't say I disagree.

Anyone who can Quote PJ O'Rourke is AOK in my book !

I must get back to this thread after I organise my thoughts on the subject...

See you in a year or so .

 

[UnoMOTO]

You set yourself up, 03R1.

I can step in IT faster then I can say holy @#%$. Nothing with this group can be broken down in to simple terms. It must be loooong drawn out and so complex that we end up like this

 

[Alex.]

Nope, just referring to these specific verses.


No one said exterminate. We said go after them like we did Nazis. There are still plenty of Germans, Nazis, and German Nazis out there. We just stopped them from having the power to violate the rights of others.

they want to exterminate jews????/

that was my point.

 

[///M-Spec]

Anyone who can Quote PJ O'Rourke is AOK in my book !

HIJACK ALERT!

Bud, I can quote P.J. all day and half and the night.



Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.

A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

If you want to know what government does, watch it when it's doing nothing.

Remember the generational battles twenty years ago? Remember all the screaming at the dinner table about haircuts, getting jobs and the American dream? Well, our parents won. They're out living the American dream on some damned golf course in Vero Beach, and we're stuck with the jobs and haircuts.


P.J. is pretty awesome. I'm reading Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperalism right now. Well, not right this minute. You know what I mean.


M

 

[Danoff]

So then why do you say that you will always consider someone's intelligence that is religious to be a notch down?

Let's say, hypothetically, you meet someone who is extremely intelligent, but he smokes. You think smoking is a dumb thing to do, so that's one thing he does that isn't smart. The rest of it is, but overall the smoking detracts from an otherwise excellent opinion of his intelligence.

If he tries to cure a headache of yours with rocks and it doesn't work, doesn't that proves him wrong?

It doesn't prove that it won't work for him. He's convinced. He'd probably tell me that I needed to focus my energy differently or something.

 

[Swift]

Let's say, hypothetically, you meet someone who is extremely intelligent, but he smokes. You think smoking is a dumb thing to do, so that's one thing he does that isn't smart. The rest of it is, but overall the smoking detracts from an otherwise excellent opinion of his intelligence.

It just takes my opinion of how that person perceives life down a notch. I don't automatically assume people are not as smart as whoever because of one single action or trait. Aside from brain damage of course..

 

[Danoff]

It just takes my opinion of how that person perceives life down a notch. I don't automatically assume people are not as smart as whoever because of one single action or trait.

I don't either, good thing I didn't say that.

 

[Swift]

I don't either, good thing I didn't say that.

Then what are you saying?

you said you'll think someone's intelligence is a notch lower for having faith. That's exactly what you're saying.

 

[Danoff]

I don't automatically assume people are not as smart as whoever because of one single action or trait.

you said you'll think someone's intelligence is a notch lower for having faith.

These two statements are not identical. The first one compares one person's intelligence to another. The second one refers to one person's intelligence.

 

[Swift]

These two statements are not identical. The first one compares one person's intelligence to another. The second one refers to one person's intelligence.

Intelligence is relative. So, I'm trying to figure out how, even though you mentioned the genius, it isn't assuming that person is less smart. Therefore, making you possibly smarter then them.

 

[Danoff]

Intelligence is relative. So, I'm trying to figure out how, even though you mentioned the genius, it isn't assuming that person is less smart. Therefore, making you possibly smarter then them.

This super smart guy I keep talking about with the rocks is a good example. I have lots of respect for him, but not as much as I would if he didn't believe that rocks affect the local negative energy.

I can measure the decrease in my opinion of him with respect to what it would have been if he weren't such a freak.

 

[Sage]

I would argue that intelligence isn’t relative – I mean, sure, you can say that Joebob is a moron compared to Joesmith, but on a less extreme scale you can’t really do the relativity stuff.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that you can’t measure intelligence (contrary to what IQ tests and SATs try to do) – it’s not like Joebob has x intelligence and Joesmith has x + y intelligence, thus they’re separated by y units of intelligence. Intelligence is both quantitative and qualitative, and the sum of our brain processes is far too complex to measure or compare to another person’s brain.

Having said that though, if you keep the brain as a constant, then it becomes much easier to measure relatively – person makes bad choice, thus they’re less intelligent than if they had made a good choice, all else being equal.

 

[wfooshee]

I've gone through this thread, remembering that the title is "Religious Tolerance."

Most of my "opinion" posts have been rather long, thickly worded, trying to say exactly the right thing with no confusion. This one's easy, though:

Do not equate tolerance of beliefs with tolerance of behavior.

 

[Danoff]

Do not equate tolerance of beliefs with tolerance of behavior.

Why should I tolerate irrational, sometimes highly dangerous, respressive, beliefs?

 

[GT4_Rule]

I agree with danoff in the first post. Hardcore Muslims does not seem to be able to tolerate anybody different from them at all. They call for destruction, murder and terrorism. I'm sure this isnt' what Mohammed wanted his religion to become. In the intolerant regard, Muslims are the worset offender compared to any other religion in my opinion. I agree that Muslims are somewhat similar to Nazi Germany in a way. Just that their target is not only the Jewish, but Westerners as a whole.

 

[ledhed]

HIJACK ALERT!

Bud, I can quote P.J. all day and half and the night.



Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.

A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

If you want to know what government does, watch it when it's doing nothing.

Remember the generational battles twenty years ago? Remember all the screaming at the dinner table about haircuts, getting jobs and the American dream? Well, our parents won. They're out living the American dream on some damned golf course in Vero Beach, and we're stuck with the jobs and haircuts.


P.J. is pretty awesome. I'm reading Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperalism right now. Well, not right this minute. You know what I mean.


M

I read it...dont drink or eat or you will choke to death laughing.

 

[ledhed]

This super smart guy I keep talking about with the rocks is a good example. I have lots of respect for him, but not as much as I would if he didn't believe that rocks affect the local negative energy.

I can measure the decrease in my opinion of him with respect to what it would have been if he weren't such a freak.

Einstein couldn't tie his shoes right ...did that make him any less of a genius ?

Or how about Thomas Edison...he's about as eccentric as your "rocks have energy dude "... guy 💡

 

[FoolKiller]

It wouldn't do you any good. He's always set to 'away'.

they want to exterminate jews????

that was my point.

The German Nazis or Extremist Muslims?

Well, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Extremist Muslims say they won't rest until "the Jews have been pushed into the sea." And I think the Nazis speak for themselves as they nearly wiped out all Jewish members of their society.

Why should I tolerate irrational, sometimes highly dangerous, respressive, beliefs?

Um, how can a belief be dangerous? I understand that a belief can lead to an action, but it doesn't necessarily. I mean, Mel Gibson hasn't attacked an Jews, as far as we know, but he obviously believes (at least when he's drunk) that they are evil, controlling, conspiracists that control everything.

A guy can believe that the world would be best if an entire race were dead because they are evil, but if he never acts on it is that belief dangerous? I think what wfooshee is getting at is that a Muslim who thinks that Jews are infidels, but does not see any wisdom in trying to kill them, is not a dangerous person.

Being intolerant of the beliefs without the combined action can lead to harming innocent people. A belief, by itself, can never be dangerous.

 

[Swift]

This super smart guy I keep talking about with the rocks is a good example. I have lots of respect for him, but not as much as I would if he didn't believe that rocks affect the local negative energy.

I can measure the decrease in my opinion of him with respect to what it would have been if he weren't such a freak.

So your respect goes down for him, but that has zero to do with his intelligence. If you respect his intelligence less then that simply makes no sense.

Why should I tolerate irrational, sometimes highly dangerous, respressive, beliefs?

Because it would make you a fascist and is exactly the opposite of what being a Libertarian is about. You tolerate people drinking and driving until they hurt someone or drive erratically. How could you not tolerate someone having dangerous beliefs?

Or you could go with what FK said:

A guy can believe that the world would be best if an entire race were dead because they are evil, but if he never acts on it is that belief dangerous? I think what wfooshee is getting at is that a Muslim who thinks that Jews are infidels, but does not see any wisdom in trying to kill them, is not a dangerous person.

Being intolerant of the beliefs without the combined action can lead to harming innocent people. A belief, by itself, can never be dangerous.

 

[ledhed]

How do you " measure " a belief ?

 

[Danoff]

Um, how can a belief be dangerous? I understand that a belief can lead to an action, but it doesn't necessarily. I mean, Mel Gibson hasn't attacked an Jews, as far as we know, but he obviously believes (at least when he's drunk) that they are evil, controlling, conspiracists that control everything.

A belief is dangerous if it's acted on. The belief itself isn't dangerous, but what the belief leads to is dangerous. See the end of this post for the rest of the answer.

So your respect goes down for him, but that has zero to do with his intelligence. If you respect his intelligence less then that simply makes no sense.

No, it has everything to do with his intelligence, because it is amazingly stupid to think that putting a rock on your foot will cure your foot pain.

Because it would make you a fascist and is exactly the opposite of what being a Libertarian is about. You tolerate people drinking and driving until they hurt someone or drive erratically. How could you not tolerate someone having dangerous beliefs?

If you mean tolerance in a governmental sense, like do I think it should be legal to be a muslim, then I'd say it has to be tolerated. But I personally don't have to accept it as a valid line of thinking.

I'm surrounded by people who believe irrational things, and until fairly recently I simply forgave them their irrational thoughts - but I don't see why I should. Why should I make an exception for religion when judging others (yes I judge others, and so do you)? I think it should be legal to be racist, but that doesn't mean I personally tolerate racists. I won't associate with racists, I don't let racist comments pass in public, I don't assume they're good people aside for this racism hangup they have. The same goes for religion, a similarly irrational mindset.

Edit: If anyone was thinking of bringing up the "Am I a Racist" thread, after that little rant... don't. It's not what I'm talking about.

Legally it should be tolerated.
Personally, I don't think I should tolerate it.