religion

There are so many different religions in the world, there doctrins are so diverse that they can't all be right. Who and why do you think one or more are correct?

------------------
ObbieWon

Because I never argue with the voices in my head.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

The first thing to do, of course, is find out the ones that can be proven fraudulent. For example, the Book of Mormon is supposed to be a miraculously accurate translation of a miraculously preserved pre-Columbian document recording (among other things) appearences of Jesus in the New World after His life in Judea. But it quotes from the King James Bible, and, in particular, it includes the medieval addition, "For thine is the Kingdom...." in the Lord's Prayer. Ergo, the Book of Mormon is a forgery. Similarly, it is well known that Wicca is no older than the 1930's.

Other cults, like Scientology, can be pretty well identified by their behavior. Still others (most attempts at "modern" religion) can be traced to plain wishful thinking of one sort or another, usually either something like, "Take away all this icky theology and give me some nice religion," on the one side or, "The modern world is too confusing; I want everything to be in sharp black and white," on the other.

Those rules don't eliminate everything, but they eliminates a lot.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

Uhm . . . From everything I've read, Wiccan-style rights have been traced back thousands of years, pre-dating Christianity. Wicca is not an "organized religion" per se, but the basic tenants have been around for a loooong time.

There is no way to determine the "true" religion, or, for that matter, there's no way to prove, beyond a doubt, that supernatural deities exist at all. It's all a matter of your own personal faiths and beliefs. The Moslem believes in his faith as passionatly as the Christian or the Hindu. Why does any religion have to be "wrong?"

Personally, I like to think of God/ess as a warm, loving, compassionate figure who watches his/her children, but doesn't directly intervene. And a creature of such greatness wouldn't be as petty as to debate minor points of theology. S/He would love the Buddhist, the Moslem and the Christian all the same.

Lissa, would your perfect God/ess love the atheists just the same, too? If s/he/it is perfect, it would have to follow that s/he/it does.



------------------
I don't know who first said "everyone's a critic," but I think it's a really stupid saying.

Hardly anybody "decides" on a religion! With the exception of a few pockets of freethinkers (I'll bet almost everybody on this board falls into this minority) people blindly follow the faith of their forebearers. Tradition (and lack of birth control) is the driving force in the success of any religion.

As for the idea that you can reconcile all religions as being valid: Can't be done. The Unitarian and Universal Churches have given that one a try and are constantly running up against contradictions that simply must be ignored to maintain peace within the church.

Someone told me a story about a church in the mid-west who's only requirement for membership was that you believe in a single god. Then a debate broke out over the Holy Trinity and half the congregation built a new church across the street!

To the extent that all of them can tell us what's right or wrong [morally that is] they're All right. But even non-religious people can do that.

To the ridiculous extent that they all argue about WHO is right---they prove themselves wrong-----chiefly because .as the feller sez, "No body ain't come back yet to tell us who is or who AIN'T .

"Who is right" is the biggest bunch of bull the world has ever been subjected to---and to hell with that infinitive!

John W. Kennedy wrote:

The first thing to do, of course, is find out the ones that can be proven fraudulent. For example, the Book of Mormon is supposed to be a miraculously accurate translation of a miraculously preserved pre-Columbian document recording (among other things) appearences of Jesus in the New World after His life in Judea. But it quotes from the King James Bible, and, in particular, it includes the medieval addition, "For thine is the Kingdom...." in the Lord's Prayer. Ergo, the Book of Mormon is a forgery.

(Bolding mine--Snarkberry)


Of course it contains quotes from the Bible. The original writers of the Book of Mormon had the Old Testament on brass plates up to 600 B.C.E., and they quoted from it because they felt that the message was important to preserve for future generations. The Book of Mormon is no more a forgery because it quotes from the KJV Bible than the KJV New Testament is for quoting the KJV Old Testament.

Ezstrete writes:

To the ridiculous extent that they all argue about WHO is right---they prove themselves wrong-----chiefly because .as the feller sez, "No body ain't come back yet to tell us who is or who AIN'T .

Please what you mean by this.

I agree that it might be impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a right and wrong here. Some religions have beliefs which are incompatible with some other religions, and therefore they cannot both be correct, so at least one of them is wrong, even if we cannot prove which one. But that does not mean that all religions are wrong! If you feel it does, then please show how!

Lissa wrote

Personally, I like to think of God/ess as a warm, loving, compassionate figure who watches his/her children, but doesn't directly intervene. And a creature of such greatness wouldn't be as petty as to debate minor points of theology. S/He would love the Buddhist, the Moslem and the Christian all the same.

I'd like to make two points about this:

(1) Indeed the Parent would love all the children. But that would not stop the Parent from being unhappy if the children misbehave. In fact, my guess is that the more a parent loves the children, the more s/he is upset when the children do misbehave.

(2) When a parent informs the child that the child is misbehaving and should improve, an all-too-common reaction is for the child to accuse the parent of being "petty". I'd advise such children to spend some time learning the parent's value system.

If s/he/it is perfect, it would have to follow that s/he/it does.

According to Richard Lederer, the preferred politically-correct, gender-neutral, third-person singular pronoun is "he-or-she/it", which can be abbreviated as "horshit".


------------------
"For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes" - Francis Bacon

<< Personally, I like to think of God/ess as a... >>

A god (one that is immortal, and not specifically given a gender) does not need to reproduce (No Greek Mythology please) and therefore has no "real" gender. So according to English, as a being (real or not), is assigned as being male. If it were a force of nature, or nature "herself", or even a big ship, as a non-being, is assigned as being female.

<< According to Richard Lederer, the preferred politically-correct, gender-neutral, third-person singular pronoun is "he-or-she/it", which can be abbreviated as "horshit". >>

I think that trying to simplify the use of English by using "they", "them", and "their" as a gender neutral, third person, singular pronoun is not being politically correct (whatever that means) but more efficient than saying s/he/it, or "he or she".

Can anyone, including Mark Mal , answer this question: Would you use "he" or "she" as a pronoun, for a nurse, which is a predominately, but not all female profession? It's not a political question, just a question of what makes more sense.

Sorry for going off on a tangent.



------------------
"If you are going to tell people the truth, be sure to make them laugh, for otherwise they will kill you." --George_Bernard_Shaw

Keeves said:

<<I agree that it might be impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a right and wrong here. Some religions have beliefs which are incompatible with some other religions, and therefore they cannot both be correct, so at least one of them is wrong, even if we cannot prove which one.>>


For all we know they may all be wrong.

Pete said:

<<Lissa, would your perfect God/ess love the atheists just the same, too? If s/he/it is perfect, it would have to follow that s/he/it does.>>

Of course. Perfect love trancends all earthly definitions of creed, race, sexual orientation and gender.

Keeves, a parent would be angry at us for misbehavihng, but we don't know for certain what the rules are. They're subject to interpretation. People argue about this sort of thing constantly.

Were you referring to Judeo-Christian law? Just as confusing. I live in a very religious community and I have seen many Protestant churches split over a minor point of doctrine.

No one knows for sure. I live by one rule: harm none. It seems to be pretty accepted on all fronts.

I just believe that all religions deserve respect and despite how strongly we believe that we, and only we, are right, it's disrespectful to stomp on another's beliefs and try to tell someone that they're wrong in everythng they hold sacred.

It's only when your religion tries to overshadow and muscle out mine that I get angry. Or when "morals" are forced on the masses through censorship.

"Trust in Allah, but tie your camel securely."

Whoops!

Keeves said:

"I agree that it might be impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a right and wrong here. Some religions have beliefs which are incompatible with some other religions, and therefore they cannot both be correct, so at least one of them is wrong, even if we cannot prove which."

And Pete said:

"Lissa, would your perfect God/ess love the atheists just the same, too? If s/he/it is perfect, it would have to follow that s/he/it does."

Man, I have got to learn how to do that cut and paste thing properly.

Sorry 'bout that.

For Keeves------

When a religion maintains that they are RIGHT, and everybody else is WRONG, they immedietly assume an attitude incorporating intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, bias and egotism which is alien to the teachings of Christianity, Islam, Confucionism, Bhuddism Shinto, Unitarianism, Quakerism and all the rest of the 'isms'.

We'll know who is "right" on the day that some one of the 'departed' returns, grabs a bull-horn and shouts "listen up! - That group is right"

However, don't be surprised if another bull horn [that's bull-HORN] operator is heard shouting - "He's got it all wrong! According to our book"-------and so forth.

Sort of the "Six Million Jesus Fans Can't be Worng" philosophy.

Intolerance is the true evil.

MARK MAL -- Let this be a lesson to you -- never attempt to introduce a little levity to a religion thread.

As a comparative "newbie," but one who read many, many threads before deciding to speak up, I just want to point out a contradiction I've noticed and see if others have noticed it or think I've got it wrong. What I think I see here . . . (could I be any less precise? I run the risk of heading into "weaseldom" by attempting not to offend) . . . is that while many posters say they embrace religious tolerance, many others exhibit great disdain, even contempt, for religion in general. The irony is that it seems that some of people are in both camps, as if to say "believe what you want, I don't care -- but what you believe is stupid." I guess I just get the distinct impression that many believe that adherence to a religion (especially an established one) somehow relegates one to the second-tier of intellectualism. Whadaya think?

Uhm . . . From everything I've read, Wiccan-style rights have been traced back thousands of years, pre-dating Christianity. Wicca is not an "organized religion" per se, but the basic tenants have been around for a loooong time.

Wicca itself doesn't date back 1000's of years. Wicca is a "revival" of older beliefs, but a much modified version - it was revived in the 40's by Gerald Gardner, who incorporated old Witchcraft beliefs as well as some Masonic and Golden Dawn (which Aleister Crowley founded and which also derives from Freemasonry) practices and added and removed a few things. Most Pagan beliefs are derived in part from the ancient Pagan practices that do predate Christianity - in fact, most Christian holidays have their origins in ancient Pagan celebrations of the solstices, equinoxes, etc. Even the terms "Christ" and "Christians" are based on the Pagan terms "Christos" and "Chrestian."


For the most part, the Neo-Pagan movement today is mostly comprised of reconstructionists, although there are pockets here and there of people who practice beliefs that have been passed down through the generations of their families.

My own beliefs fall into the latter category, and the closest I can come to describing them is to say that they're similar in nature to Native American beliefs. I do call myself "Witch" or "Pagan," although I look and dress just like anybody else. Most Pagans are freethinkers and tolerant of others.

Most religions/spiritual paths do have similarities - one example would be the great flood myths.

I tend to think all religions/spiritual paths are valid. No one way is "right" or "wrong." How can we prove the existence of God/Goddess/the Divine? We can't, so that's why we humanize it - we put it into terms or forms we can more easily comprehend.

Skat

Do not say, 'I have found the Spirit walking on my path,' for the Spirit walks on all paths... Just as there are many names for water, so also are there many names for God. Do not scoff where another bows down, for there your God is worshiped also ~ Kalil Gibran

JODIH -- I consider myself to be a junior member -- er -- hanger on -- of this message board. A couple of times i've posted people have taken me too seriously and once even inferred i was a Nazi. I never get emotional, but do we have to always put smileys after each post to show we don't take ourselves too seriously I have really enjoyed your posts on the Prayer thread



------------------
"If you are going to tell people the truth, be sure to make them laugh, for otherwise they will kill you." --George_Bernard_Shaw

John W. Kennedy
Member posted 05-19-99 11:55 AM

The first thing to do, of course, is find out the ones that can be proven fraudulent. For example, the Book of Mormon...

Good job on showing tolerance of other faiths, there, JW. Now how about attacking the myth of a person being resurrected after three days (or even any number of days, for that matter)? After all, it's not just we LDS types who believe in that little part of Christanity.

And for those who didn't notice: I was being incredibly sarcastic with my remark about JW's tolerance.

I hate posting to religion threads, but here I am anyway.
I have to back Monty on the tolerance issue. The validity of a faith cannot be dependant on its origin, but on the actions and attitudes shown by its followers. If the tenets of any given faith produce people who make this world a little better to live in, it MUST be pleasing to any conceivable benevolent deity. Of course, people who believe that God acts like a petty and capricious Middle-Eastern potentate will disagree with me...


------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not use reason to reach."

For Skat!

Hey! It's the religionists who send out the proselyters----Those of us who don't feel a need for a group are the ones who are continuously being told to 'Get in line.'

We who are not 'groupies' are not against those who are---Matter of fact we don't even think about them 99.9% of the time.

Make that an even 100%

They must all be real. Like Phyllis said on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, looking over Minneapolis, "If God isn't real, why would he have all those houses?" So, the real estate criterion defines it:the more temples ,the more real it is.

In acts 2 the apostiles were in the upper room and the holy spirit came upon them and the all spoke of the same accord. If the holy spirit tells everyone the same thing and doesn't contridict itself why are ther baptists, lutherns, methodists as well as all other churches that profes to be christain with wide swings in ther religious beliefs? If god knows all, sees all ,hears all is evry place at the same time and nowhere is he not found. Why pray to saints when god can do it all? In revelation john keeps trying to worship the angle that he is with wonts to build an alter to him the angle keeps telling him to worship god and jesus only and not any graven images like saint charms, rosery beads, the bones of saints statues and other graven images. Does that leave any christians standing?

Baloney. The book of mormon is true. The Lord told me so. Use whatever "proof" you want but I trust the Lord. If you would read the book of mormon, and pray, with real intent, to know if it was true, the Lord will also tell you that it is true. Now, as for your elininating churches that can be proven fraudulent, you would have to first decide which teachings of the lord are not fraudulent. You cannont discount a religion without knowing what it is that a religion should be.

The Church of the Holy Frisbee.
That's where your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

OK, I gotta jump in here, even against my better judgement.

Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists do not necessarily disagree over anything, any more than we might with members of our own church. It's just that not everyone likes the same style of worship or polity.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat, of course I realize that this is an extremely idealistic view, but it is the theory behind many denominations. The founders of United Methodism, Disciples of Christ, United Churches of Christ, amoung others never thought that other denominations were wrong, only that they had developed specific methods (hence, in one case, Methodists) of helping people follow Christ.

Furthermore, although most Christians believe that the Holy Spirit has helped (and continues to help) guide tradition, even pre-Vatican II Catholicism defined only a small part of their doctrine as the garaunteed product of divine inspiration. In other words, the Spirit is consistant, but doesn't dictate every line in the church discipline. The teachings that different denominations do disagree on are pretty much agreed by most to be non-essential, even though one may feel very strongly about them. Of course there are a few assholes, and even entire denominations of assholes who think that they alone are loved by God, and everyone else can (and will) go to hell, but these are a much smaller minority than their vocalism makes them seem.

As for graven images, Obbie's ignorance about these things, rosary beads in particular, indicates that he's either had absolutly no contact with real Christians, or else was raised Catholic . None of the things you mentioned, Obbie, are worshipped by anyone, although Catholics and Orthodox may use rosary beads to help count their prayers, or those and any number of other things to help them focus on God while praying.

As for saints, well, I'm not Catholic, but there is this pretty universal doctrine called the Communion of the Saints, which says that all believers are part of a common community united by their faith. Since for some, all includes past, as well as present, they pray to saints for the same reason you talk to your priest and other churchgoers--they're friends who are there to help you in matters of faith.

Sorry about such a long post, friends, but there was a lot to refute!

It is not "religious toleration" to accept a palpable lie. The Book of Mormon is provably a modern forgery, because it quotes a corrupt medieval text of St. Matthew. (Of course, the whole idea that Jesus, even if he did appear in the Americas, would preach the "Sermon on the Mount" verbatim, and that a miraculous, perfect translation of this pre-Columbian text into English would reproduce the exact, verbatim text of the King James translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic original is laughable to begin with.) The accounts of the Resurrection on the other hand, are not provably forgeries; you may choose not to believe them, but that is not the same thing as being able to prove that they are deliberate lies.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

I don't know that anyone has ever really defined what religious tolerance is, JW, but I think politeness probably has something to do with it.

So long as the Mormons (or the Wiccans or the Whoeverans) aren't insisting that you follow their beliefs, is it necessary to go around declaiming "palpable lies" wherever you see them?

If someone were to tell me that the only way to experience God's love was to rub blue mud in my belly button, I'd probably nod and say "My, I never thought of that". I wouldn't start looking for blue mud, but neither would I put much effort into calling their belief a palpable lie.

I don't doubt that there are details of the Mormon holy book that are extremely questionable under examination. But faith is faith, and believing in something you may consider silly or fraudulent doesn't change the fact that a person finds comfort and resources in their beliefs.

I say, so long as they're not bugging anyone, let them rub that blue mud in as much as they like.

OBBIE-WAN -- My own creed of religious tolerance dictates the following: If someone is going to attempt to worship an angle, he or she must respect someone else's right to worship a curve or a straight line, if they so choose.

And . . .

IOTA -- Thank you much!

PHOUKA -- Amen, Brother (or Sister)!

In my view, the problem that JW really has may not be so much with religious tolerance as it is with what exactly tolerance is. According to an e-mail forward I got recently, tolerance has traditionally meant merely acceptance of other people's right to believe in things in which you disagree and that you would accept others regardless of their race, nationality, creed or gender. It also meant that you would try to live peacably with others despite their differences, and made a distinction between the person and their actions.
The New Meaning of Tolerance, however, makes some changes. Now, instead of each person having an equal right to believe in whatever he or she wants to, whatever he or she belives or says IS equally right. Not only does everyone have an equal right to his or her values and lifestyles but all values and lifestyles are equal. And the new Tolerance tends to equate Who I Am with What I do. These ideas come from Dr. John Martz, pastor of a local church.
I, and I think a lot of other Christians, find it easy to be tolerant of others in the traditional sense. I look at the Bible, and find that Jesus states "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one can come to the Father, but by me". I thus consider followers of other religions, or those who choose not to follow any religion, to be in the wrong. This doesn't mean I can't be friends or good neighbors with them. It may mean that I try to get them to give me a chance to share why I believe what I believe with them since I would love for them to come to know God as I do.
New Tolerance is much harder for me. I don't do well at giving other opinions equal validity with each other, much less mine. (I respect someone's beliefs in Judaism or Islam much more than beliefs in Wicca or New Age beliefs).

"I respect someone's beliefs in Judaism or Islam much more than beliefs in Wicca or New Age beliefs"

- Archimedes

Arch, why is that? I don't want to start a flame war, but being Wiccan, I would like to understand why that is.

phouka,
Why do I have more trouble respecting beliefs in Wicca than in Judaism or Islam?
Well, Judaism is easy for me to respect, the "only" "problem" Jews have is that they failed to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the predicted Messiah. Islam is still one of the three great mono-theistic religions. I don't know enough about Wicca to have much respect, in a generic sense, for those who believe it. (Meaning, if I met you tommorrow and you explained why you believe what you believe, I might respect YOU, without neccessarily coming to respect others who believe what you do.) I also, perhaps because my religious beliefs are all or nothing, tend to have more respect for other religions that say "If We are right, You are in Trouble" than for those that seem to be extremely "New Tolerant" of everyone else.

Nobody has to tolerate my religion, because I keep my yap shut about it. You can believe what you want to believe, it's all the same to me - just don't get in my face with it.
Tolerance made simple?

Archimedes said:

tolerance has traditionally meant merely acceptance of other people's right to believe in things in which you disagree and that you would accept others regardless of their race, nationality, creed or gender. It also meant that you would try to live peacably with others despite their differences, and made a distinction between the person and their actions.
... Now, instead of each person having an equal right to believe in whatever he or she wants to, whatever he or she belives or says IS equally right. ... I, and I think a lot of other Christians, find it easy to be tolerant of others in the traditional sense. ... I thus consider followers of other religions, or those who choose not to follow any religion, to be in the wrong. This doesn't mean I can't be friends or good neighbors with them. ... New Tolerance is much harder for me. I don't do well at giving other opinions equal validity with each other, much less mine.

As much as I have disagreed with Archimedes in previous threads dealing with religious topics, I think we're pretty much in agreement here. I agree with the definition of tolerance and think that "new tolerance," as you have called it, is wrong -- all ideas are NOT of equal validity (this is part of the post-modernist movement as well, I believe).

As cliche' as it sounds, several of my best friends are young-earth creationists (and anybody who has seen me post on that topic knows that I am certainly not). It's just something we don't talk about (though it was a little tough when I did a newspaper book review on Noah's Flood, a book that posits a historical occurrence as the origin for the myth of the Flood, and their Sunday School teacher used it in one of their classes ).

It may mean that I try to get them to give me a chance to share why I believe what I believe with them since I would love for them to come to know God as I do.

Depending on how you did this, it probably wouldn't go over too well with me if I was one of your friends.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

Can one believe in unbiased truth and still be tolerant?

By this, I mean if you see a religion is based upon a provable falshood, shouldn't one point out the obvious that the belief is false?

Even if you can't prove it, if you think a religion is causing harm to it's followers and to society itself, wouldn't it be one's duty to society to try and correct that situation?

Even if it's a harmless belief, shouldn't people believe things only if they are true? Is "impolite" or politically incorrect to seek truth?

I've been a follower of tolerance all my life, but I'm starting to wonder if that's been at the expense of Truth, with a capital T.

I'm not saying there should be burnings at the stake, but instead of ignoring people's wrong beliefs, maybe there should be SOME attempt to show them they are wrong.

Who is to say what's right and what's wrong, you are saying to yourself. This Revtim asshole? What the hell does he know?

(Although I am an ordained minister of the ULC, so it David Letterman, to show you what that's worth.) Go to www.olc.org and become one yourself!

I agree with John W. Kennedy that there are damn good reasons not to believe SOME things. Why is the evidence there that some beliefs are wrong, did Satan put it there? Unlikely, and if you go for that chain of logic, then you must admit that all religions are equally likely, and sheer probability practically proves that the religion YOU believe in is false.

Ezstrete wrote

When a religion maintains that they are RIGHT, and everybody else is WRONG, they immedietly assume an attitude incorporating intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, bias and egotism which is alien to the teachings of Christianity, Islam, Confucionism, Bhuddism Shinto, Unitarianism, Quakerism and all the rest of the 'isms'.

I just want to make sure I understood you correctly. I don't claim to be an expert in any of those religions, but are you saying that their teaching don't include the idea of standing up for what you believe in?

I always kind of thought that part of the idea of "religious belief" was that the person really thinks that the tenets of the religion are true. Tolerance is a great idea for people who don't believe too strongly in any particular belief. But for those who do have strong beliefs, I'd suggest phouka's suggestion that

I don't know that anyone has ever really defined what religious tolerance is, but I think politeness probably has something to do with it.

My goodness, John W. Kennedy. You think that you KNOW that the book of mormon is a forgery. It has been PROVED by your source. The essence of the book of mormon is this: The Lord told me it is true. I know many people who also make this claim. The Lord has told each one of us. This is my claim, and many others with me. I have, on my side, the Lord himself telling me that the book is true. You have an unnamed source with speculation and conjecture doing everything he or she can to "prove" the book of mormon wrong. get back to the real issue in this thread.

What criteria are posed by the bible and other religious works that must be in a true church? If we list the criterium, and apply the list to the churches in this world, THEN we can see how close each church is to what the lord intended.

Revtim said:

Can one believe in unbiased truth and still be tolerant?
By this, I mean if you see a religion is based upon a provable falshood, shouldn't one point out the obvious that the belief is false?

Depends on what your goal is. I can't recall who was using it as a sig line around here, but they said something like, "You cannot use rationality to argue a man out of a position he did not use rationality to reach." Most people did not arrive at their religious beliefs through rational means. Thus, trying to rationally prove them wrong is usually an exercise in futility.

Note that I am talking about something that I would characterize as a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based one. There are creationists, for example, who claim to have actual evidence to support their beliefs. I have no problem using rational arguments against those sorts of things, because they have left the realm of pure faith and entered the realm of science.

Even if you can't prove it, if you think a religion is causing harm to it's followers and to society itself, wouldn't it be one's duty to society to try and correct that situation?

Here, I would have to say yes if you have some evidence. For example, there are many who believe that this is the case with Scientology, and they have gone to great lengths to try to alert society to the problems they perceive.

Even if it's a harmless belief, shouldn't people believe things only if they are true? Is "impolite" or politically incorrect to seek truth?

Should people only believe things that are true? In my opinion, yes. Do they? No. In some cases it is both impolite and politically incorrect to seek the truth (just see the way Contestant #3 has reacted to some of us skeptics challenging his UFO claims in the first Art Bell thread -- I'm sure he thinks we were impolite). I have received e-mail from various people because they didn't like that I was seeking the truth, and apparently felt insulted. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop, though.

I'm not saying there should be burnings at the stake, but instead of ignoring people's wrong beliefs, maybe there should be SOME attempt to show them they are wrong.

Depending on what type of belief it is, there may be many people showing it is wrong; but there also may be many ignoring them.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

Curious as to what you were about, Revtim, I dutifully copied and pasted your suggested URL (www.olc.org) into my browser.

Hmmmmm, I didn't know the Ohio Library Council had ordained ministers ...

------------------
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~

John W. Kennedy:

It is not "religious toleration" to accept a palpable lie. The Book of Mormon is provably a modern forgery, because it quotes a corrupt medieval text of St. Matthew.

Could you give me a cite for that?


JWK:

(Of course, the whole idea that Jesus, even if he did appear in the Americas, would preach the "Sermon on the Mount" verbatim, and that a miraculous, perfect translation of this pre-Columbian text into English would reproduce the exact, verbatim text of the King James translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic original is laughable to begin with.)

What's so hard to believe in the fact that God would say the same thing to two different peoples? And that he would have the foresight to make sure that his words in the two different accounts would be almost exactly the same in the future when the two accounts came together? God is omniscient, after all. I suppose you would be complaining that God wasn't consistent if the two accounts didn't match.

Peace.

For Keeves again.

You've illustrated the "right" problem.

Being right also requires that one DOES right, THINKS right and treats all animals, including genus homo, right------ unfoundedly declaring that others are wrong is making judgements based on opinion and opinion only and is fundamentally a wrong thing to do.

So, those who point the finger of intolerance are perforce wrong---what could be simpler?

I'm outa here----

I came to a logical conclusion once. There can only be one truth, all else is wrong. Therefore only one religion (atheism included) can be correct. If two religions are correct, then they are the same religion.

Thus, until the truth is clear, we will never attain peace.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

Slight misperception, Beeruser. Atheism is not a religion. Being an atheist is not saying"The is no God!'. It is saying"Don't see a god, don't see a tooth fairy, don't see Santa Claus, etc." When I grew up, I realized that fairy tales are entertaining, but imaginary. I don't believe "in", I believe "that". I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I don't believe in Peter Pan.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

John W. Kennedy
Member posted 05-20-99 10:02 AM

It is not "religious toleration" to accept a palpable lie.

And the Bible contradicts itself and also contains descriptions of physical impossibilities, JW. What's your point; that is, assuming you have one?

And FYI, the LDS also number the Bible as one of the Holy Books. If you're going to post inflammatory stuff, try to get it right.

Doh!
Yes, I made a typo, it should have been www.ulc.org .

jodih - I agree with those who do not like what they see about the Christian belief, due to their agressive attempts at conversion. Since I myself believe that the Christian belief is false, anyone trying to convince me of it irritates me.

I'm an atheist, and all my life I've been very tolerant of religions. Until lately. Suddenly, I'm just very, very tired of it. Ghosts, God, psychics, demons.... I seriously think society would be better off without religion and supernatural beliefs.

I started a thread asking if there had ever been societies where the majority did not have supernatural beliefs. There was very litle response, I guess because there haven't been any (plus it wasn't a very interesting topic). I should have asked there has ever been a religionless society. I don't think communist countries count, because I think the majority of people still believed in their religions.

Here's a question for the Teeming Millions: has there ever been a religious practice or belief that helped a society, that could not have been started simply to help society, without a religious aspect?

Example: Thou shalt not Kill. Obviously, a very helpful tenet for a society to follow. But one could easily come the conclusion that society works better when you minimize people killing each other, without any kind of supernatural belief attached to it.

I think society will work better when people realize that morality is good not because Allah wills it, but simply because it helps society and the individual.

For the record, believing in a particular religion, even Christianity, does not have to mean believing that all other religions are wrong. I, for one, belive that Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." I therefore believe that anyone who encounters the Father (i.e., God,) does so through Christ, whether or they are familiar with the name "Jesus." To explain it a different way, since the Bible also says that God is Love, any religion that causes people to experience Love, partakes of the Word Jesus embodied. This might seem like a radically non-orthodox view, but it's not. Ancient and medieval theologians argued that since the names the Bible uses for Christ include "logos" (word) and "truth," that the Greek philosohers who sought truth through logos were worthy of incorporating in their interpretations of scripture. In fact, they often refered to Socratese as if he were a sort of "pagan Saint."

Here's a question for the Teeming Millions: has there ever been a religious practice or belief that helped a society, that could not have been started simply to help society, without a religious aspect?

How about the ideas of non-violence and passive resistance to evil. These ideals were exemplified by memberss of two totally different religios traditions, Gandi and Dr. King. Even though neither Hinduism nor Christianity has consistantly advocated these ideas, either before or after these men, the bases from which they drew their ideas were, as far as I know, exclusively religious.

phouka - I disagree with nothing you have said.

You say:

As adults, we are individually responsible for our own beliefs and actions. As we are responsible for them, we have the right to hold whatever beliefs we prefer and pursue whatever actions - so long as they are legal and hurt no one else. The cost of this right is that we can't tell anyone else how to believe.

Another cost of this is that we, as a society, will never be in a situation where the majority believes in The Truth, whatever that may be.

This is my biggest frustration, lately. I was content my whole life to ignore other's beliefs, and keep mine to myself. But something changed in me recently, I don't know what. I feel suddenly very motivated to change the world. I'm not content to let people wallow in what I see as ignorance.

I REALLY want people to turn away from supernatural beliefs. I don't want to rule the world under my iron fist and force people to abandon their religious practices, or suffer consequences of law. I want people to see the truth, and believe it.

And yes, I know everybody feels the same way about their own beliefs. But I'm right. :-)