It is a nice idea to let people beleive whatever they like with mutual respect, but two major problems arise:
- many religions have a call to evangelise, i.e. to spread the word about their belief to non-believers, contained within their teaching ... so, if you believe that your belief is right, which I guess you ought to, then telling other people comes as part of the deal.
-- I do also realise that there are good and bad ways of doing this.
- Some people actually find that the belief they have "works", in some sense, for them, and think it could work for others too. Regardless of any doctrinal obligation to evangelise, they want to tell others what they believe because they truly believe it could be useful.
Sorry, this was longer than I intended, but the upshot is that no matter how nice it would be for everyone to believe what they want without anyone ever claiming to be right, it just won't happen.
Oh, and has anyone actually realised that something must be true amongst all of this furore?
~ Argue all you like, it'll only stall you and stop you finding the truth ~
Home
TheSinner.net
Top 10 reasons to believe in God
Re:
by Miss Maryland on Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:11 pm
[s]Unregisted User James wrote on 00:22, 7th Nov 2002:
Sorry, this was longer than I intended, but the upshot is that no matter how nice it would be for everyone to believe what they want without anyone ever claiming to be right, it just won't happen.
Oh, and has anyone actually realised that something must be true amongst all of this furore?
~ Argue all you like, it'll only stall you and stop you finding the truth ~
And you're saying that you know the truth? I'd have to disagree with you and say that it is possible to believe what you want and leave other people alone. I'm a catholic but you don't se me going around trying to convert people. Afer all, it isn't uncommon for people to question things in their youth. Some will "come around" (as you might describe it), and some won't.
I don't like people telling me that there is no God and that everything I believe in is wrong, especially when I don't question their beliefs. It's sort of a golden rule about trying to enforce ideas. Besides, how many people are willing to listen? I forget which philosopher presented the idea, i most likely have it wrong but here's the gist: the sky is overcast and we argue about what is going on above the clouds, what no mortal can see.
When people can feel just as strongly as you do, I don't see where "faith" justifies any attempts to convert them.
just my two cents (a quite heavy two cents at that)
Sorry, this was longer than I intended, but the upshot is that no matter how nice it would be for everyone to believe what they want without anyone ever claiming to be right, it just won't happen.
Oh, and has anyone actually realised that something must be true amongst all of this furore?
~ Argue all you like, it'll only stall you and stop you finding the truth ~
And you're saying that you know the truth? I'd have to disagree with you and say that it is possible to believe what you want and leave other people alone. I'm a catholic but you don't se me going around trying to convert people. Afer all, it isn't uncommon for people to question things in their youth. Some will "come around" (as you might describe it), and some won't.
I don't like people telling me that there is no God and that everything I believe in is wrong, especially when I don't question their beliefs. It's sort of a golden rule about trying to enforce ideas. Besides, how many people are willing to listen? I forget which philosopher presented the idea, i most likely have it wrong but here's the gist: the sky is overcast and we argue about what is going on above the clouds, what no mortal can see.
When people can feel just as strongly as you do, I don't see where "faith" justifies any attempts to convert them.
just my two cents (a quite heavy two cents at that)
-
Miss Maryland
Re:
by Dee on Sat Nov 09, 2002 1:30 am
Well I suspect no-one here would suggest it wrong if I tried to convert people to the Liberal Democrats (unlikely as that scenario may be). I may not believe it right to compel belief (one cannot compel belief anyway) but I certainly see no problem with persuading others of your beliefs through persuasion and debate. And if you don't like it...tough.
I feel no qualms about expressing my views. You may not like them, but does this make my expressing them wrong? I for one would rather have a devout atheist ranting at me about the stupidity of my beliefs than have him prattling away about the weather, and how is so dreamy, too afraid too say anything worth saying.
"Oh no, but religion is such a contentious issue, the normal rules don't apply!"
Am I seriously expected to avoid speaking about contentious issues because *gasp* I might offend someone? Are we really so insecure in our beliefs that we can't stand having our views questioned for a few minutes? Good grief - am I wrong to say the Earth is round because I might offend flat-earthers?
I seem to have become rather highstrung here - it's only because I care though. No offence meant, if any was taken.
Anyway, if I say "I believe in God," you have the freedom to ignore me, to prove me wrong (if you can
), to cover your ears and sing "Hit me with your rhythm stick" in the vague hope it'll get me to shut up, but if you want to forcibly compel my silence that'll need a major regime change.
Or maybe not - "Incitement to religious hatred" laws. Yipee! It's the way backwards!
I feel no qualms about expressing my views. You may not like them, but does this make my expressing them wrong? I for one would rather have a devout atheist ranting at me about the stupidity of my beliefs than have him prattling away about the weather, and how
"Oh no, but religion is such a contentious issue, the normal rules don't apply!"
Am I seriously expected to avoid speaking about contentious issues because *gasp* I might offend someone? Are we really so insecure in our beliefs that we can't stand having our views questioned for a few minutes? Good grief - am I wrong to say the Earth is round because I might offend flat-earthers?
I seem to have become rather highstrung here - it's only because I care though. No offence meant, if any was taken.
Anyway, if I say "I believe in God," you have the freedom to ignore me, to prove me wrong (if you can
), to cover your ears and sing "Hit me with your rhythm stick" in the vague hope it'll get me to shut up, but if you want to forcibly compel my silence that'll need a major regime change.
Or maybe not - "Incitement to religious hatred" laws. Yipee! It's the way backwards!
I probably don't like you, but don't take it personally. Nobody likes you.
-
Dee
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 5:32 pm
ML1002 redux
by Tom Plant on Sat Nov 09, 2002 4:15 am
I'm not sure where Pilot's 'hundreds' of references to Jesus's life come from; as far as I'm aware, other than those of the new testament, the only other (small) mentions of him are in the Jewish historian Josephus. These, sadly, have now been proven to be later additions to the original text by mediaeval monks, which does not leave us with much to go on. All we have is partisan accounts, preaching to the converted. Considering that Jesus's life very closely reflects that of several other previous middle-eastern mythical heroes, his existence is my no means guaranteed. Not that this matters, of course; the message of his testament is powerful and has had a great an effect on the world whether he existed or not. It is just a shame that this effect has not always been so beneficial as its authors presumably intended (assuming that the 'disciples' were not just political revolutionaries clad in religious clothing).
As far as 'believing what you like' is concerned, I suppose that's fine until people start acting on their beliefs. Bin Laden's god and Charles Manson's are rather different from, say, Mother Theresa's; but as long as their belief is justified by faith alone, there can be no objective moral distinction between them. Faith justifies anything except itself, and has been of far greater detriment than good to humanity. Even today, does the happiness of western Christians in their faith really excuse the oppression that its originator, the Catholic Church, has caused for well over a millenium? Or does it justify the use of faith to oppress millions of Muslims today? Or to allow the pre-Chinese Tibetan theocracy to enslave its own people and deny them the most basic of rights? Not to my mind. The faith of the philanthropist is morally distinguishable from that of the divinely inspired psychopath only by recourse to reason, which is the very antithesis of faith.
Perhaps we should if we encouraged our children to think, instead of teaching them to believe, the world might be a better place.
As far as 'believing what you like' is concerned, I suppose that's fine until people start acting on their beliefs. Bin Laden's god and Charles Manson's are rather different from, say, Mother Theresa's; but as long as their belief is justified by faith alone, there can be no objective moral distinction between them. Faith justifies anything except itself, and has been of far greater detriment than good to humanity. Even today, does the happiness of western Christians in their faith really excuse the oppression that its originator, the Catholic Church, has caused for well over a millenium? Or does it justify the use of faith to oppress millions of Muslims today? Or to allow the pre-Chinese Tibetan theocracy to enslave its own people and deny them the most basic of rights? Not to my mind. The faith of the philanthropist is morally distinguishable from that of the divinely inspired psychopath only by recourse to reason, which is the very antithesis of faith.
Perhaps we should if we encouraged our children to think, instead of teaching them to believe, the world might be a better place.
-
Tom Plant
Post Script on one point here ...
by James on Sun Nov 10, 2002 6:38 am
Consider this:
A: I follow a religion that I believe to be true and that I think others should at least know about.
B: Everyone is entitled to believe what they like. Just respect that and keep quiet.
What happens if B wins A over? B successfully imposes his/her view on A. So what of everyone being entitled to believe what they like? A believes it is right to tell others about his/her (A's) belief.
B's view is contradictory if ever he/she even tries to convince others of it and win them over to the side of not telling others about one's faith.
A can respect others' right to believe what they like, but he/she may still feel duty-bound to present his/her belief. That is fair: people may beleive what they like, but they ought to know their options. This view is not contradictory, whether held individally or actually applied to the world.
(I freely admit, as before, that there are good and bad ways of being an "A".)
A: I follow a religion that I believe to be true and that I think others should at least know about.
B: Everyone is entitled to believe what they like. Just respect that and keep quiet.
What happens if B wins A over? B successfully imposes his/her view on A. So what of everyone being entitled to believe what they like? A believes it is right to tell others about his/her (A's) belief.
B's view is contradictory if ever he/she even tries to convince others of it and win them over to the side of not telling others about one's faith.
A can respect others' right to believe what they like, but he/she may still feel duty-bound to present his/her belief. That is fair: people may beleive what they like, but they ought to know their options. This view is not contradictory, whether held individally or actually applied to the world.
(I freely admit, as before, that there are good and bad ways of being an "A".)
-
James
well said, mr. plant
by Miss Maryland on Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:05 am
[s]Tom Plant wrote on 04:15, 9th Nov 2002:
I yield my argument.
I yield my argument.
-
Miss Maryland
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests