How tolerant are you of other religions?

[Brimshack]

I dunno, but look at his status.

No, I didn't say that at all.

 

[Evangel]

so are there right and wrongs or just what works and what doesnt work?

 

[lared]

Jesus said that you would know the truth and the truth will set you free.

I have come to know the truth and make it part of my life to share the truth with others, just as Jesus did.

Of course, not all accepted the truth from Jesus, why in fact, it was only a minority of people. Most individuals were swayed by their religious leaders and traditions.

So, it does not bother me, if only a few, pay attention to the good news. Only a few are on the road to life and most are on the road that leads to destruction.

Oh, and by the way...strictly speaking....no one can convert you. You have to do that yourself.
Just as watching commercials on TV.....can they MAKE you buy their products?

 

[Brimshack]

I disagree with the uitilitarianism that Zephyr argued, so I would not say it amounts to what works and what doesn't work. I would replace a question about whether there are right and wrongs with a question about whether right and wrong are meaningful. These are expressions of value, and hence, they apply to the orientation of those using them as much as to the objective properties of the actions. (Notice I didn't say "instead of" or "more than"; they apply to both.) The answer to that question is 'yes' I do think that right and wrong are meaningful, even literally so. Whether or not it makes sense to append words like 'absolute' or 'relative' to such words is another question. There I am far more inclined to say 'no'. To say that something is absolutely right is just to try and substitute affect display for rigor, and to say that they are relative begs the question relative to what?

 

[vajradhara]

Sweetkitty said:

"I think I'm pretty tolerate of other's religious beliefs. I think it's wrong to try and force someone to accept that YOUR way is the ONLY way."

How do people try to force people to accept their way? I don't see this happening too much nowadays.

Namaste aaron,

whilst this is true in the western countries, to some extent, it is not the case in other areas of the world. take a look at the Chittagong Hill Tracts, for instance and you'll see a good example of people trying to force others to accept their religion.

 

[Evangel]

Jesus said that you would know the truth and the truth will set you free.

I have come to know the truth and make it part of my life to share the truth with others, just as Jesus did.

Of course, not all accepted the truth from Jesus, why in fact, it was only a minority of people. Most individuals were swayed by their religious leaders and traditions.

So, it does not bother me, if only a few, pay attention to the good news. Only a few are on the road to life and most are on the road that leads to destruction.

Oh, and by the way...strictly speaking....no one can convert you. You have to do that yourself.
Just as watching commercials on TV.....can they MAKE you buy their products?

the Holy Spirit is the One that does the real Converting but you have to be willing.

 

[Evangel]

I disagree with the uitilitarianism that Zephyr argued, so I would not say it amounts to what works and what doesn't work. I would replace a question about whether there are right and wrongs with a question about whether right and wrong are meaningful. These are expressions of value, and hence, they apply to the orientation of those using them as much as to the objective properties of the actions. (Notice I didn't say "instead of" or "more than"; they apply to both.) The answer to that question is 'yes' I do think that right and wrong are meaningful, even literally so. Whether or not it makes sense to append words like 'absolute' or 'relative' to such words is another question. There I am far more inclined to say 'no'. To say that something is absolutely right is just to try and substitute affect display for rigor, and to say that they are relative begs the question relative to what?

i agree something is either right or wrong and its a given that they are always that way. appending words like "absolute" doesn't do more than state the obvious. i must ask this pressing question, unfortunately, what defines/makes something right or wrong?

 

[Konnie]

I tolreate people of other beliefs, but know they're wrong.

 

[tcampen]

isn't funny how everone can tolerate other people's beliefs yet "know" they're wrong? As it stands, only one person can really be right, and logic does not even demand one be right.

I have found that the position of "knowing I'm right, and others who think differently are wrong," is an impossible position when you're talking about the inherently unknowable, such as the supernatural. I try desparately to be a tolerant person, but find it increasingly difficult to be tolerant of such an asinine position.

Therefore, may I suggest we all qualify such positions more often with such phrases as "I believe" or "In my opinion," since that's really what we are talking about.


My two cents.

 

[Aaron11]

isn't funny how everone can tolerate other people's beliefs yet "know" they're wrong? As it stands, only one person can really be right, and logic does not even demand one be right.

I get your point. However, the people who say this (myself included) realize that there is only one viewpoint that can be right on issues such as the existence of God. This is not overlooked. The only thing that is an issue, is that it means that many other people are wrong who also think that they are right. This confuses the matter because you can not just take someone's word for it that they know something to be right or wrong. Yet, it does not dilute the presence of truth. There are those who know that they are right and are correct in that knowledge.

 

[lared]

Jesus said that one would know the truth....and the truth would set one free.

Not that one would have an opinion as to the truth.

I find people who believe they have the truth as far more interesting to talk to.

 

[tcampen]

There are those who know that they are right and are correct in that knowledge.

Not necessarily. And even if true, only partially correct, at best. It really isn't as simple as whether "God Exists" or not, since what God is varies widely.

The enlightened Buddhist "knows the Truth" with as much certainty and sincerety as any Christian "knows the Truth" about ultimate reality. But until there is some objective criteria for determining the reliability of which of the world's "Truths" is most correct, it will remain purely a matter of opinion.

 

[Aaron11]

Not necessarily. And even if true, only partially correct, at best. It really isn't as simple as whether "God Exists" or not, since what God is varies widely.

I didn't say that someone knows every truth about reality. I said that some people say they know there is a God, and some people say they know that there is not. Using logic, one has to be correct and one has to be incorrect in these statements (assuming that they are talking about the same thing).

 

[Aaron11]

The enlightened Buddhist "knows the Truth" with as much certainty and sincerety as any Christian "knows the Truth" about ultimate reality. But until there is some objective criteria for determining the reliability of which of the world's "Truths" is most correct, it will remain purely a matter of opinion.

This is not true. Just because we do not all agree on what the truth is, does not mean that it is "just a matter of opinion" until such a time that we all agree. I will tell you a story to illustrate:

There was this really really smart guy named Albert Einstein. He came up with a theory that if an object is accelerated at an incredibly high speed, time would slow down for that object compared to an object that was at rest. We know this as time dilation. (The subject isn't really that important, so if you don't understand the workings of time dilation, don't worry about it, its not the point.) Anyway, Albert Einstein's theory was challenged by classical physicists of the time. The classical physicists said that what Einstein was proposing was absolutely wrong. Now, Einstein and the other scientists had their projections of what the truth is. Were they matters of opinion? No. They were statements of truth. One had to be right and the other had to be wrong. Well they tested the idea. Turns out Einstein was right. But that is beside the point. The point is, even before the proof was given, Einstein was right. Time dilation took place even when no one had proof that it did or didn't.

Also, people use the word "opinion" in such different ways today. Some people mean, "a confident belief that does not have proof", while others mean, "a judgement of merit". Now, I know that you must've meant "a confident belief that does not have proof", when you said, "But until there is some objective criteria for determining the reliability of which of the world's "Truths" is most correct, it will remain purely a matter of opinion", so it seems a little redundant. However, if you wish to label it as opinion, that is fine. But it is an opinion on a matter of truth. So on a question like, "Is Jesus God?", there is a right and a wrong "opinion" on that. Since there is a right and wrong answer to this question, it seems to be more than, "just a matter of opinion".

 

[tcampen]

This is not true. Just because we do not all agree on what the truth is, does not mean that it is "just a matter of opinion" until such a time that we all agree. I will tell you a story to illustrate:

There was this really really smart guy named Albert Einstein. He came up with a theory that if an object is accelerated at an incredibly high speed, time would slow down for that object compared to an object that was at rest. We know this as time dilation. (The subject isn't really that important, so if you don't understand the workings of time dilation, don't worry about it, its not the point.) Anyway, Albert Einstein's theory was challenged by classical physicists of the time. The classical physicists said that what Einstein was proposing was absolutely wrong. Now, Einstein and the other scientists had their projections of what the truth is. Were they matters of opinion? No. They were statements of truth. One had to be right and the other had to be wrong. Well they tested the idea. Turns out Einstein was right. But that is beside the point. The point is, even before the proof was given, Einstein was right. Time dilation took place even when no one had proof that it did or didn't.

Great Point! However, Einstein proposed a testible, observable, and falsifiable theory. And guess what, it's held up to such. (Using atomic clocks on jet aircraft, for example.) Please show me how religious views are equally subject to such peer review, and you might have a point.

Also, people use the word "opinion" in such different ways today. Some people mean, "a confident belief that does not have proof", while others mean, "a judgement of merit". Now, I know that you must've meant "a confident belief that does not have proof", when you said, "But until there is some objective criteria for determining the reliability of which of the world's "Truths" is most correct, it will remain purely a matter of opinion", so it seems a little redundant. However, if you wish to label it as opinion, that is fine. But it is an opinion on a matter of truth. So on a question like, "Is Jesus God?", there is a right and a wrong "opinion" on that. Since there is a right and wrong answer to this question, it seems to be more than, "just a matter of opinion".

You are correct...the assertion is either ultimately true or it is not (or partly true in a way our finite minds cannot comprehend). HOWEVER, because the assertion itself is not testible, observable, and falsifiable using objective criteria (unlike Einstein's), what's the point?

Please show me proof of the Christian heaven and hell concept, for example, as being more probable than reincarnation. I'd love to see it. And remember to use criteria that is objectively testible, observable, and falsifiable - just to keep us all honest.

Until you can do that, then it is just your opinion.

 

[Aaron11]

Great Point! However, Einstein proposed a testible, observable, and falsifiable theory. And guess what, it's held up to such. (Using atomic clocks on jet aircraft, for example.) Please show me how religious views are equally subject to such peer review, and you might have a point.

My point wasn't whether we can prove it. My point was that no matter if we can prove it or not, there is a truth to the matter.

You are correct...the assertion is either ultimately true or it is not (or partly true in a way our finite minds cannot comprehend). HOWEVER, because the assertion itself is not testible, observable, and falsifiable using objective criteria (unlike Einstein's), what's the point?

My point is, there is truth. My point is that Jehovah is or He is not. If He is, then it truly does matter. If He does not exist and there is no god, then I guess it wouldn't matter. So, if it matters or not depends on whether or not God is.

Please show me proof of the Christian heaven and hell concept, for example, as being more probable than reincarnation. I'd love to see it. And remember to use criteria that is objectively testible, observable, and falsifiable - just to keep us all honest.

Are you confused at my point? Did I say that I would show you heaven or hell?

Until you can do that, then it is just your opinion.

Until I do that, my word is just my opinion. However, God existing or not is not JUST an opinion, because there is a truth to the matter.

 

[fairyshyone]

I have many different friends. I do not always agree with their religions but in return they do not always agree with mine. We do not judge each other.

 

[lared]

How should Noah have felt about his fellow man's religions with the insight that he had?

 

[tcampen]

My point wasn't whether we can prove it. My point was that no matter if we can prove it or not, there is a truth to the matter.

But what is the relevance to asserting a "truth" that cannot be proven or verified objectively? This puts all such assertions on an equal level as they are all unproveable.

Until I do that, my word is just my opinion. However, God existing or not is not JUST an opinion, because there is a truth to the matter.

This reduces the issue to "it is either true or not true that God exists." However, this grossly oversimplified concept presents infinitely more problems than it resolves. There are infinite number of variables that exist within this (false) dichotemy. Got may, in fact, exist, but be totally different that anything you know or could have imagined. God may exists in such a way that all the worlds religions are accurate reflections of him, while non of them being more right or wrong as a result. (Remember, God is omnipotent.)

I think what you are reallly trying to say is "it is either true or not true that God is consistent with my interpretation and belief of what he is, and anyone who differs with me is wrong." You would have to get at least this specific about god in order for your statement of "this is true or not true" to have any meaning whatsoever. And even then, regardless of what the "real truth" may be, for all intense and purposes , it's just your opinion, precisely because it cannot be verified. What possible value can an unverifiable assertion of a fact have?

 

[Gentle Panther]

Just wondering

Since there seem to be people of all different faiths and ideas on this chat, how tolerant are we of one another? Do you find it difficult or easy to talk to others who differ in opinion from you? What do you want those of other faiths to know about you when interacting with you?

I am so tolerant of other beliefs that I attend a Unitarian church!