Religion How tolerant are you of other religions?

[Duo]

I don't care what others believe or whom they pray to or their rituals as long as they do not interfere with society's secular and inherent social values. Then I tend to be extremely intolerant.

 

[Ma Cherie]

It can be a difficult thing to be tolerant of another religion. I consider myself to be tolerant of other religions. But it's a different story when you have people shoving their religion down your throat. I do have a problem with cults, they're just exploiting people's ignorace.kashii:

 

[Mars Man]

A good subject matter, in my opinion--for what it's worth :hihi: --and a lively run, to boot !

I think of myself as being relatively tolerant, but there are some 'ifs' that come into play. There are some major players in the mainstream of belief-systems which I would prefer take on a little (and in some cases much more) 'healthy self-doubt' so as to counter balance any absolute tendencies in any 'our way is the one and only way' teaching and admonishing practices.

There is also, as I see it, a historical thing--the up to now aspect--which should be detached from the 'from now on' aspect of the data bases of these several basic belief-systems 'on the market'.

So yes, tolerant, yet never letting our questioning and testing posture becoming overly relaxed.

As a side note: I would argue that through what can be gleaned from what we have learned by the application of scientific method to the nature of which we are, purpose and meaning in life can be gained.

 

[No-name]

Maciamo, I only brought science into this discussion after you proposed that anyone teaching anything not proven by science should be imprisoned and is guilty of "intellectual rape."

I was not raised as a Christian, nor am I unitelligent or uniformed. After considering other philosophies and metaphysical constructs I have rejected them in favor of the message of hope found in the Christian faith. Psychology, neuroscience and genetics have never given the answers for the most important questions to any satisfaction. And I don't have the least problem reconciling my faith with science, but I doubt that psycho biology or neuroscience will hold the keys to life and to existence. Science simply doesn't ask those questions and can't sufficiently provide those answers.

The question on this topic dealt squarely with tolerance: do you allow others to make their own journeys, find their own answers and follow the quest they choose or do we dictate that certain pursuits are criminal and off limits? Do we close off avenues of faith simply because the defy our understanding of them? Or does every philosophy, metaphysical conceptualization, or existential exploration have to fit a particular limited definition?

 

[Maciamo]

Maciamo, I only brought science into this discussion after you proposed that anyone teaching anything not proven by science should be imprisoned and is guilty of "intellectual rape."

I said that about evolution and the creation of the earth, not everything. I hate you for always taking things out of context and rewording my sentences. One word changed or misplaced and it doesn't mean the same. You should know that as an English teacher.

I was not raised as a Christian, nor am I unitelligent or uniformed. After considering other philosophies and metaphysical constructs I have rejected them in favor of the message of hope found in the Christian faith. Psychology, neuroscience and genetics have never given the answers for the most important questions to any satisfaction. And I don't have the least problem reconciling my faith with science, but I doubt that psycho biology or neuroscience will hold the keys to life and to existence. Science simply doesn't ask those questions and can't sufficiently provide those answers.

You are talking about finding the "answers" in your life to find satisfaction with your life. In other words, you are just looking for your own petty selfish satisfaction from an egoistic point of view. In that case religion can give you the "answers". But philosphy is first and foremost impersonal. It gives the answers to the "how's and why's", and let individuals find whatever conception of the world, values or morals they need to live happily. But philosophy, like sciences, will not give you illusions to make you feel better about reality. It's purpose is just the opposite : dispell the illusion and myths to see reality as it is. And believe me, it is much more difficult to understand how things really are than to imagine some fairy-tale stories to explain them. All primitive civilisations have their fairy-tale stories about the creation of the world. Philosophy is not for the people who are unsatisfied with their life and seek comfort or hope. It is for those for whom truth and facts are more important than one's own feelings and existence. You need to dismiss your own existence is a mere meaningless flow of energy in the immensity of the universe to be able to think like a philosopher. It requires more strength of mind and character than to believe stories that people tell you...

The question on this topic dealt squarely with tolerance: do you allow others to make their own journeys, find their own answers and follow the quest they choose or do we dictate that certain pursuits are criminal and off limits? Do we close off avenues of faith simply because the defy our understanding of them? Or does every philosophy, metaphysical conceptualization, or existential exploration have to fit a particular limited definition?

I may accept or tolerate the facts that some people need to believe in irrational things to find happiness, but I do not respect it because it doesn't fit one of my fundamental values, which is to seek truth.

Otherwise, let me repeat what I say before. I do not tolerate "powerful organised religions that want to control people, make money, wield political power, and impose their beliefs on others". That is why I have no patience and respect for strongly proselytising religions that claim that they know god's message or whatever.

 

[No-name]

I said that about evolution and the creation of the earth, not everything. I hate you for always taking things out of context and rewording my sentences. One word changed or misplaced and it doesn't mean the same. You should know that as an English teacher.

I appologize if you think I am taking a word out of context. I thought it was quite clear what you said and that my summary was quite concise. Perhaps when I asked about it initially as some provocative form of hyperbole you could have clarified then. As it stands, what you said was that anyone guilty of teaching anything that conflicts with science... particularly religion, is lying, brainwashing, and intellectually raping children. You haven't clarified or changed that sentiment. I find that quite abhorent and perhaps you should have clarified what you meant. I don't see how I am misquoting you nor do I see a context in which that statement is acceptable.

Obviously your objections on religion have a personal origin. Sometimes I wish it were as easy as making up fairy tales to make oneself feel better. But I suppose that you could make yourself feel better by considering religion more primitive and somehow inferior to philosophy. In that way, perhaps the conceit is the same.

 

[No-name]

Also- my belief in God has nothing to do with finding happiness. I will believe in God whether I am happy or not. And it believing in God has nothing to do with abandoning reality or some search for the truth. Any religious person will tell you that in their faith they have found the ultimate truth. I would suggest that you read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis which explains Christianity far better than I can do here.

I'm not a big fan of organizations that try to impose their will on people or tell me what to think or how to vote. But last time I checked, even in Europe-- isn't membership into one of those big organized religions still voluntary? When they collect money-- isn't that also voluntary? And aren't these religious people entitled to the same speech and political voice as anyone else?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The more I learn about science the more convinced I become that science and logic can explain everything that can be explained. But at the same time, the more tolerant I become of other people's beliefs. I believe (know) that who we are, how we think and how we understand the world is determined by the structure of our brains. My brain is wired in such a way that I don't need life to have a purpose beyond everyday experience. I don't need a god or an explanation for things that science doesn't understand yet, or a belief that I will exist after this life. But if you do, the last thing I will do is decry your beliefs, because that's the way your brain is wired. I might 'know' that you're wrong, but I can't fairly call you a liar, because a person can only be held to account for falsehood if they are lying intentionally. That's true of some 'religious' people I'm sure, but not of most.

As for raising children, I was raised a Christian and I'm glad of it. My Sunday School education taught me the value of caring for others, simple kindnesses and standing up for oneself. I think you would do well to find a better role model than Jesus - nitpick about the 'lies' he told if you're so inclined, but I prefer to remember the valuable lessons he taught. The stories I remember are good examples for anyone - kindness towards children and sick people, generosity even if you have nothing, considering others, speaking out against injustice. I think what you take from Christianity's message says as much about you as an individual as it does about the message. It's sad to focus on the negative when there is good stuff there too. I'd rather see a Christian child who believes in creation but treats people kindly, than a child who knows his science but treats others like crap.

Anyway, the belief that parents influence how their children turn out is not supported by science. Studies of ten of thousands of children find little evidence that parental upbringing has any influence on a child's personality and beliefs. I have trouble accepting those findings, so I can sympathise with someone who has trouble accepting other things that science has discovered.

 

[Revenant]

I think what you take from Christianity's message says as much about you as an individual as it does about the message. It's sad to focus on the negative when there is good stuff there too. I'd rather see a Christian child who believes in creation but treats people kindly, than a child who knows his science but treats others like crap.

I quite agree with this, and I think when the paradigms of Christianity are prioritized correctly, they do produce good results in most people. I'd give you rep if I could.

Anyway, the belief that parents influence how their children turn out is not supported by science. Studies of ten of thousands of children find little evidence that parental upbringing has any influence on a child's personality and beliefs. I have trouble accepting those findings, so I can sympathise with someone who has trouble accepting other things that science has discovered.

I'm most interested in these studies, are there any books you'd recommend?

 

[Maciamo]

I think what you take from Christianity's message says as much about you as an individual as it does about the message. It's sad to focus on the negative when there is good stuff there too.

Personally, when I hear "Christianity" I do not just picture the content of the Bible, but I see an enormous quasi-political organisation based in Rome, other smaller independent organisations, preachers, proselytisers, manipulated masses, fanatics, moderates, Christian-in-name-only people, new-born Christians, missionaries, past crusades and inquisition, pedophile priests, anti-Atheists, etc. Please look at the big picture when you give a positive or negative connotation to a word. Do not just list the good and the bad; give weight to each good and bad point according to their frequency or effect on society throughout history.

As for the Bible, some of it is irrational and antiscientific statements, some of it is myths, some of it is somewhat historical, and some of it is a moral message. I hardly care about the moral message (which is fairly good in the NT, but doutful in the OT), because I hardly know any Christian who follow them exactly as they should. Priests and monks are especially bad at respecting the totality of the Christian moral code, by distorting it to suit their own vision of what should be.

Morals are one of the most subjective thing taught in Christianity, and one of the least respected by Christians. I noticed that some people care much more about attending churches, reading the Bible, talking about God and salvation, or confronting non-Christians than about the moral message taught by Jesus.

What is more, moral is a very personal thing, which cannot be force-fed on a whole population because it cannot fit each individual due to their different degrees of intelligence, hormonal levels (an important factor in aggressivity and violence), their strength of character, life experiences, etc. That is one more reason why I dislike religions, as they only teach one standardised moral message (and often an ambiguous one, to add pain to the injury) as if everyone thought and felt the same way, when it is clearly NOT the case. That is why I favour "custom-made" morals befitting each individual for an optimal result. Needless to say that this is also one of the reasons why I find religions primitive. That is why I see people who need to be taught morals rather than think of rules of conduct by themselves by comparing various religions and moral codes, as fairly retarded and somewhat dangerous people for society (because they can't think by themselves, so are influenceable, and so could be easily manipulated by religious leaders to commit terrible things).

SO, yes there are good things in the morals of the New Testament. I never contested that. It's fine to take what you like in it, or from any other religious moral message. But religions are not a moral message. That's just the tip of the iceberg. They are much much more than that: political, brainwashing, manipulative, often irrational and wrong when it comes to metaphysics and sciences, and ultimately preach a message of exclusiveness of beliefs which is very dangerous.

 

[Maciamo]

Anyway, the belief that parents influence how their children turn out is not supported by science. Studies of ten of thousands of children find little evidence that parental upbringing has any influence on a child's personality and beliefs. I have trouble accepting those findings, so I can sympathise with someone who has trouble accepting other things that science has discovered.

I would agree that parental education has little influence (not 'not at all') on the personality and intelligence of their children. However, if they did care a lot about their education personally (not letting nurses, tutors and teachers do it for them), they surely have had an influence on their general knowledge, political and religious beliefs. It is very possible that these beliefs change in adulthood according to the new experiences and environments they evolve in - but the influence in the childhood is clear to me. I remember that my classmates at school typically believed the same things as their parents. If one was strongly Christian it almost always meant that the parents were. If one had strong leftist views in politics (as teenagers), it's usually because their parents did. However the older they grew and the more distinct these beliefs tended to become from their parents. The more intelligent and independent-minded people found their own way quicker. Some never do and keep believing what their parents (or teachers) told them. This is why I am against teaching religion at home and in schools - at least until the age of 18.

 

[No-name]

...This is why I am against teaching religion at home and in schools - at least until the age of 18.

That would be intolerance-- especially if you would have the state impose such a restrictive ruling. I would be greatly offended if you are telling me how to raise my own children. What makes your opinion more valid in the raising of my children. Raise yours however you like, but leave me and my house alone. This is the core of tolerance.

 

[CarrionMan]

School and church have long been left separated, due to laws in antidisestablishterrianism.